Business and Trade

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Written Corrections

[Chris McDonald]

In Cornwall, we have Europe’s largest deposits of lithium, and in Devon, the world’s largest deposits of tungsten. The UK has the only Western source of rare earth alloys for F-35 fighter jets.

[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 48.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald):

[Chris McDonald]

In Cornwall, we have Europe’s largest deposits of lithium, and in Devon, the world’s second largest deposits of tungsten. The UK has the only Western source of rare earth alloys for F-35 fighter jets.

Critical Minerals Strategy

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s critical minerals strategy. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am particularly delighted that you are in the Chair, given your personal interest in critical minerals, having launched the UK’s first critical minerals strategy a number of years ago. I am also pleased to be joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), for whose work I aim to take the credit this evening.

The story of man is the story of metals. From the discovery of the first alloy—bronze, a mixture of copper and tin—people have smelted, melted, forged and formed metals to their will. Knowledge of the art of blending alloys has been sought throughout history by kings and nations for defence and prosperity. The ancients recognised the noble metals of gold and silver, and the base metals of tin, lead, copper and iron. The industrial revolution led to the industrial metals of steel, aluminium and titanium, but our age is to be dominated by critical minerals—the basic materials that give function to everything from digital technology to fusion energy. That is why we have launched our new Vision 2035, the UK’s critical minerals strategy. It is part of our industrial strategy and supports the Government’s No. 1 mission—the mission for growth. Whether it is neodymium for permanent magnets, platinum for fuel cells or copper for infrastructure, our critical minerals strategy will ensure that the UK can access these vital materials, and that we all benefit from the security and economic opportunities they offer.

The UK is already home to one of the largest nickel refineries in Europe at Clydach, and a rare example of European cobalt refining at Widnes. We have titanium production in Swansea, aluminium at Fort William, chromium in Rotherham, platinum group metals and vanadium, all with the highest standards of environmental control. In Cornwall, we have Europe’s largest deposits of lithium, and in Devon, the world’s largest deposits of tungsten. The UK has the only Western source of rare earth alloys for F-35 fighter jets. To quote my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

“where things are made…matters.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.]

We have world-leading academic institutions. The University of Birmingham is commercialising a process for pulverising magnets into a powder for remanufacturing. Queen’s University Belfast is developing magnet recycling technologies, using ionic liquids to recover rare earth metals. Camborne SCHOOL OF MINES has remained a leading British institution for over a century, and I am looking forward to visiting tomorrow.

Having spent much of my career in metals research, I know that as a country we underestimate the global standing of our institutions, but of course the point of research is to create value for the UK economy, which means commercialisation at home. In Britain, we understand the advantage that can be created by a global dominance in metals. For centuries, half of the world’s tin came from Cornwall and Devon. Britain dominated the graphite industry thanks to the Borrowdale deposits in Cumbria. Almost all the world’s copper was smelted in Swansea and the majority of global steel production came from Sheffield. As a nation, we confidently built a global competitive advantage from ingenuity alone, taking action to shape the world around us. Now, we have the opportunity to confidently do so again. By combining our natural mineral deposits, secondary resources from recycling, strength in midstream processing, innovation, and a role as the global centre for finance and trading, we will ensure that by 2035 at least 10% of annual UK demand is met from domestic production and 20% from recycling. This displacement of imports by the development of both primary and secondary recycling routes is driven by a need to enhance our economic security.

The deployment of this strategy will ensure that our capabilities are marshalled and supported appropriately, our supply chain opportunities are identified, and that resources, both public and private, are targeted at strengthening the UKs competitive position. Our industrial strategy is a deliberate partnership between Government and private investment, and this is also the case on critical minerals. Up to £50 million of new Government funding for domestic production will take total funding to over £200 million. The City of London is already a global centre for the listing of mining companies and mining finance. With the London Metal Exchange as the global hub for metals trading, and ICE Futures Europe expanding into critical minerals, our opportunity is to redirect our financial and investment strength into UK industrial development. 

Significant investment support is available from UK Export Finance and the National Wealth Fund. That will reduce the need for UK entrepreneurs to sell their companies to overseas investors at an early stage, and increase the opportunity for Britain to benefit from the growth of new UK-owned, UK-headquartered and UK-listed industrial champions. 

Our British industrial competitiveness scheme, the consultation on which was announced in a written statement laid before the House today, will improve the competitiveness of the business environment. It will reduce electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt-hour from April 2027 for over 7,000 eligible manufacturing businesses, reducing their energy bills by 25%. 

Having identified our critical mineral needs and domestic capabilities, and as we now take action to secure investment, we must make sure that our policies on trade and international co-operation ensure diversity of supply and safeguard our nascent industries. As well as exploiting our natural primary and secondary sources of critical minerals, we will diversify international supply chains, so that by 2035, no more than 60% of any critical mineral will come from a single country. We will achieve this by ensuring that future trade agreements allow increased access to critical mineral supply chains, and by entering into bilaterial agreements that increase the breadth of our supply base. We will work through organisations such as the G20, G7, the World Trade Organisation, NATO and the International Energy Agency to improve supply chain resilience.

In June, the Prime Minister announced the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and for the sake of national security, we are considering mandating that stockpiles be held by industry, using procurement to create diversity in the supply chain, and taking part in the NATO critical minerals stockpiling project. Our trade strategy includes a strengthened approach to trade defence, ensuring that we can safeguard UK businesses from an increasingly volatile international trading environment. That will involve us introducing new legislation to expand our powers to raise tariffs in response to unfair trading practices.

This Government are not agnostic on the fate of British industry and British manufacturing. Given a fair business environment, our industry and workers can out-compete others. The industrial capability of Britain should not be subject to the whims of the international market or foreign Governments. Our industrial strategy, and the place of critical minerals within it, is a marked departure from the hands-off approach of the past. The UK Government is now working in close partnership with UK industry to support private sector investment and growth, just as other developed economies have done and continue to do. The new critical minerals strategy is another step forward in that ambition, and gives business investors confidence that the materials, industry and jobs for Britain’s future are secured. Critical minerals are essential for building the modern world. Control and supply of these materials are the means by which nations will secure power and wealth in this century. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I will definitely be paying close attention. I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Critical minerals are vital to our national security. In submarines, missiles, jet fighters and radar, we need critical minerals for our national defence. Critical minerals in electric vehicles and wind turbines are also vital for clean energy generation.

It is striking, however, that the Government’s critical minerals strategy does not mention China once. That is despite that fact that China, which has built an almost global monopoly on processing, recently imposed export licence requirements on seven rare earth elements: samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium.

Can the Minister say whether the Department has made any assessment of China’s dominance in the critical minerals market and whether the Government consider it a threat?

The UK “Critical Minerals Strategy” document seems to have been written in a bit of a rush. It is sloppy, riddled with spelling mistakes and has inconsistent statistics and errors in geography. Why should industry trust a Government who cannot even proofread? For instance, according to the Cobalt Institute, current global demand is 200,000 tonnes and is set to grow by 14% a year, meaning that by 2030, the global demand for cobalt is forecast to be 438,000 tonnes. In the Government’s document, however, UK domestic demand will be 636,000 tonnes in 2030. Could the Minister kindly proofread the document and place a corrected version of the whole strategy in the Library?

The strategy recognises the impact that high energy prices have had on the critical minerals industry, but under Labour, our energy bills are up. Why do the Government not just adopt our cheap power plan to cut electricity bills by 20%? Oil and gas are key inputs in the production of critical minerals. What impact does the Minister believe this Government’s policy of closing down the North sea will have on domestic critical minerals production?

Under Labour, foreign direct investment into this country has fallen to an all-time low. How do the Government expect to build a critical minerals industry if no one is investing? Can the Minister therefore today rule out any tax rises heading towards this industry on Wednesday? The national insurance jobs tax and the unemployment Bill are set to cost the critical minerals industry £50 million, which is exactly the same figure as the funding pledged by the Government today—the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the 330-page job-killing Employment Rights Bill are costing businesses £1,000 per worker, and there are a total of 50,000 people employed in the critical minerals industry. Is this a recognition from the Minister that the Government’s tax rises are crippling British industry?

In summary, the first duty of any Government is to keep our country safe. Refreshing the critical minerals strategy is an essential part of that mission. Given the scale of global competition and the risks of supply chain disruption, does the Minister agree that there is still a great deal of work to do to ensure that Britain is secure in the critical minerals we need for our future?

[Chris McDonald]

I start by saying that if there are indeed any spelling or factual errors in the document, I offer my apologies to the House; that is clearly unacceptable, and I will ensure that any corrections are made and that a new copy is laid before the House. I thank the hon. Lady for bringing those matters to my attention.

On the substantive issues raised by the shadow spokesperson, the point about China is clearly very important. The Government are well aware of China’s dominance of critical minerals supply chains. In some areas—particularly in processing, as she will be aware—China controls 70% to 90% of the market. Our critical minerals strategy is designed precisely to provide greater diversity of supply, both at home, through primary and secondary extraction where we have the materials to do that, and through our G7, G20, NATO partners and others, as I mentioned in my statement. A critical point to note is that the supply of secondary raw materials is a natural resource that the UK has. We currently offer those resources for processing overseas, which are then returned to the UK at considerable cost. A focus of this strategy is ensuring that we have those resources in the UK.

The shadow spokesperson mentions electricity bills. I think that my statement is best read in conjunction with the written statement on the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which aims to reduce electricity bills for industry by 25% compared with current levels—a reduction of £40 per MWh. The British industrial competitiveness scheme and the critical minerals strategy are both part of this Government’s relentless focus on growth and our success in attracting inward investment.

As to the points about taxation, I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to wait 48 hours for the Budget.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyone who has visited my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency cannot have missed the signs of our industrial past, but after decades of post-industrial deprivation, global demand for critical minerals is surging to accelerate the transition to a clean energy future—opposed entirely by Reform—and with our unique geology, Cornwall is at the epicentre of the opportunity. The geology has not changed, but the market is back with a Government who get it. This Labour Government have published a strategy with teeth, with targets for domestic production, a new growth minerals list and £50 million in funding. Does the Minister agree that investment must flow into Cornwall to create jobs, reduce the reliance on China that was allowed to run rampant under the Conservatives and, in so doing, unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger?

[Chris McDonald]

Meur ras to my hon. Friend. He has been such a strong champion of critical minerals, so it is a pleasure to hear from him today, and it is no wonder that we have, given that Camborne and Redruth is already home to the Crofty tin mine and has great opportunities for lithium extraction as well, holding Europe’s largest deposit of lithium. I believe that this will mark the launch of a renaissance in the mining industry in Cornwall—an industry that has so much to bring to Cornwall and that the Cornish people love so well for the jobs it brings and the pride it gives to communities too. All the work in this strategy would simply not have been possible without the support of my hon. Friend and his fellow MPs from Cornwall. I look forward to finding out more about the opportunities in Cornwall when I visit tomorrow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. Critical minerals are vital to national security, economic development, the green transition and regional prosperity. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK must strengthen and regularly update its industrial strategy. The 2022 plan and the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre are useful foundations, but they are insufficient.

We have long been champions of industrial strategy, and we are proud of the strategy that we introduced in Government. I am glad that the Government are taking steps to address green growth, regional inequality and sustainable economic development, and we welcome the ambition shown in the strategy announced today. Increasing domestic production will boost our national resilience to supply chain changes. We support the commitment for at least 10% of annual UK demand to be met from domestic production by 2035. However, what further steps are the Government taking to reduce reliance on unreliable foreign sources of critical minerals? Furthermore, how will the Government ensure that the UK remains competitive with the US and the EU, both of which offer substantial incentives for critical minerals processing?

We welcome the launch of the consultation today on the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Energy-intensive industries are set to benefit from a 90% discount on their electricity network charges, but what support will be available to small businesses, including the many in the hospitality sector that were omitted from the industrial strategy and continue to struggle with energy bills?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Lady for her words on the strategy. Words are one thing, but implementation is another. This Government are now focused on how we implement the strategy and ensure that we attract investment. The single biggest difference with this Government is that we are putting real money behind the strategy; as I mentioned, we are putting in an additional £50 million, bringing the total funding to £200 million. Through both the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund, there are opportunities for more significant investment to ensure that we have UK-headquartered, UK-owned and UK-listed industrial champions in this area. We are not agnostic about industry and manufacturing, and we want to ensure that the communities that host these businesses benefit from that and that the UK economy benefits as a whole.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am so pleased that the riches beneath our feet in Cornwall will finally be taken out and used in a sustainable way that benefits the people of Cornwall. I am so pleased to see this strategy, as are the people of Cornwall. The Minister is coming to Cornwall and will visit the port in Falmouth, which I hope will benefit from an expansion project. I am also hopeful to see the freight railway restored, which could be used in future to move critical minerals and supplies around in a more sustainable way and take lorries off the road. Will the Minister consider this tomorrow when he comes to Cornwall and as part of the strategy going forward?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for the significant amount of work she has done and her engagement with me during the preparation of this strategy. She is right to highlight the opportunities at the port of Falmouth. Those opportunities start with critical minerals and perhaps also renewable energy. I intend to visit the port of Falmouth tomorrow and would be pleased to hear more about those opportunities when I am there.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

This country has no phosphates, and no phosphates means no agriculture. Happily, our close friend and ally the Kingdom of Morocco has most of the world’s reserves of phosphates, but it is closely followed by unreliable countries such as Russia, China, Syria and Algeria. Does the Minister’s 60% rule apply to phosphates? Will he ensure that the association agreement signed between the UK and Morocco in 2019 is strengthened further so that we can ensure that we do have access to phosphates, without which our farming sector would be completely finished?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the right hon. Member for mentioning phosphates, which he is right are an incredibly important element for agriculture. As for securing supplies, I point him to the part of the strategy that talks about bilateral arrangements with nations to ensure that we get that diversity of supply. We are committed to working through multilateral organisations as well as ensuring that we get bilateral agreements in place with countries with mineral wealth that will be of benefit to the UK and where the relationship can be mutually supportive.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Cornwall has a proud history of mining, and this announcement means that we will also lead the way in meeting the UK’s future demand for critical minerals, so I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. The Government’s plan will create opportunities for businesses in South East Cornwall such as Cornwall Resources—my constituents thank the Minister for that—including year-round skilled jobs, strong local supply chains and investment that will keep local talent in Cornwall. Will he outline how the Government will ensure that that investment is supported by a clear skills plan so that local people can access the new jobs linked to critical industry and how communities will be involved throughout the exciting months ahead?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising skills and for continually championing industry in Cornwall and skills with me for some time. The existing skills of the people of Cornwall are clearly one of the reasons why these industries will be so successful in Cornwall, but the Government also recognise that more investment in skills is required to ensure that so many viable projects in Cornwall can be successful. I assure her that the Department for Business and Trade is working with the Department for Work and Pensions on this issue. We are determined to ensure that all the people of Cornwall have the opportunity to participate in these industries.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Minister tell the House what is so special about the year 2035? It is the year by which the Government say they will achieve expenditure of 3.5% of GDP on defence—compared with the 4.5% to 5% we used to spend in the cold war years of the 1980s—and it is now the year by which that the Government say no more than 60% of any critical mineral will come from a single country. Do the Government not feel that the deterioration of international relationships is such that we ought to be thinking about a rather closer timescale than 10 years from now?

[Chris McDonald]

I do not know about the right hon. Gentleman, but when I am setting objectives, I like them to be specific, measurable and achievable. We have worked carefully with industry on the 2035 target, and projects such as those I mentioned in Cornwall clearly have mobilisation periods. He may be right to point out the synergy between the 2035 date of our critical minerals strategy and of our defence strategy, given that they are so closely linked.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals, I greatly welcome the strategy released this weekend. Domestic supplies of critical minerals are of huge importance to our economic security and resilience in an ever more turbulent world. They are also a potential source of jobs and prosperity, particularly in places like mid-Cornwall, which, like the Minister’s own home, were once rich with the spoils of industry and can be once again. May I welcome the Minister meeting Cornish industry, Cornish workers and our supply chain businesses to agree how we ensure that the spoils of the industry cascade through every level of the local workforce, supply chains and even local ownership?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals and for working with the Critical Minerals Association; their work in advance of this strategy was incredibly helpful. He speaks well in championing his area in Cornwall, where there are projects involving Cornish Lithium and British Lithium. I can assure him that I will meet both those companies and speak to the management and the workforce when I am in Cornwall tomorrow.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I welcome the ambition and importance of this new strategy, and I congratulate the Minister on recognising that Devon is the source of more than just cream teas and tourism. The Devon minerals plan has more in it than the critical minerals: my constituency has an application for an extension to dig up Zitherixon ball clay, a substance found in the middle of the town of Kingsteignton and in the war zone in Ukraine.

May I have the Minister’s assurance that, although we have a justified urge to get these minerals out, we will not abandon the environmental and residential concerns of our constituents in the areas impacted? Does he also acknowledge that transport is important and that Devon needs the Dawlish rail line to support these minerals?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Please keep questions short. They are not speeches.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and for pointing out the importance of Durham—sorry, Devon! Durham is slightly on my mind; it is my home county. I think we may come to Durham later session.

On his prime point about the environmental aspect of mining for these minerals in Devon, I mentioned in my statement that the UK project will be held to the highest environmental standards. I specifically wrote those words into the speech because we need to take into account, when assessing the sources of critical minerals, that great environmental harm is caused in many places in the world by their extraction and processing. The processing in particular presents an economic opportunity for the UK, but there is also an environmental responsibility that we need to face up to. It is incumbent on us to find a way to do this processing economically in the UK so that environmental harms are not caused anywhere else in the world.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from the Minister and refer him to the Select Committee’s report issued today on economic security, which touches on some of the issues that he has talked about. It also talks about the much wider threats to the resilience of the UK’s economy. On that point, I want to ask him about stockpiling. The statement refers to the potential for some stockpiling to take place in the defence industry, but having seen the many threats to our national security identified by the Select Committee, will he consider expanding the scope of stockpiling to other critical minerals? There is real potential for industries to be completely crippled if hostile actors wanted to take us down that route.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work as part of the ministerial team in the Department for Business and Trade prior to my appointment. On stockpiling, it is the Government’s view that we will work with the Ministry of Defence and with industry and, while not mandating stockpiling, use procurement to ensure that we can stockpile appropriately. I certainly think that the precise quantity and breadth of the minerals to be stockpiled is something the Ministry of Defence will want to look at much more carefully. I know that my hon. Friend has also been a great champion for Less Common Metals, a great British champion in this space in his constituency. I spoke to the chief executive of that business just last week, and it has been central to forming the strategy.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Minister’s side of the House and endorse everything that they have said on this issue.

As the Minister will be aware, Cornwall has its own industrial strategy, which harmonises with the Government’s ambition and includes the space sector, green energy and geothermal. Will he ensure that the Government back the Cornish industrial strategy so that we can crack on with delivering the critical minerals strategy, and indeed all other aspects of the Cornish industrial strategy?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member makes a good point in that, ultimately, the delivery of any modern industrial strategy is fully dependent on critical minerals. The sectors he mentioned, such as space, are entirely dependent on critical minerals. I doubt that there has ever been a strategy presented in this House that has more fulsome backing of Cornwall than this one.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Defence Committee has been conducting a review of the AUKUS submarine programme and has recently published its review on European defence security. Secure critical minerals are central to both. Will the Minister explain how the strategy supports our national security strategy and the delivery of major defence programmes, such as the global combat air programme, the lightweight multirole missile, the new Typhoon radar and the new frigates?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. and gallant Friend is right to raise the issue of AUKUS. I omitted AUKUS from the long list of international collaborations in my speech, but of course, there is an important role for AUKUS here through co-ordination between the nations involved. Our procurement reforms with the MOD will involve a supply chain centre where we will work with such international partners. He is also right to point out the economic opportunity through the export orders that the UK has recently secured. Having a supply chain of critical minerals in the UK will help the security of those exports.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Anyone listening to this statement should be fearful for the future of energy production in this country. On the one hand, we have a Government who are totally committed to net zero, the elements of which will require huge inputs of critical minerals. On the other hand, the Minister tells us that by 2035 we cannot expect to supply more than 10% by ourselves and will still be reliant on some other countries for 60%. We have no control, or no political control, over the global distribution of those metals. Does he not accept that this strategy, rather than being one of assurance for the future, could leave us increasingly vulnerable to people who have control over materials that we need for energy production, and that we should not be turning our back on the gas and oil we have?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify one point. He has formed the impression from my words, and I apologise if I was not clear, that we would supply only 10% from UK production. It is actually 10% from primary sources—that is, from mineral extraction—and a further 20% from recycling, so it is 30% in total from UK production. He talked about the green energy industries. Of course, these critical minerals are essential for many other industries, such as defence, space and artificial intelligence. In fact, I know how concerned he is about industries like oil and gas—they are essential for those industries, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I ask colleagues to keep their questions short.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard evidence that we need these critical minerals for our energy future. That is absolutely true, so the 10% from production and the 20% from recycling are key steps along that road. Can I ask the Minister about no more than 60% coming from one country? He talked about some of the allies he will work with, but what will this Government do to ensure that production is increased from countries other than those such as China?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend asks from where the remaining 70% of the UK’s critical minerals will be sourced. Of course, for some of those critical minerals, the UK will be able to produce more than our own domestic needs, and that enables us to enter into trading arrangements. I have already met my opposite number in the Canadian Government. Canada, of course, has extremely rich resources in this area, and the US is also very active. I mentioned some of the multinational organisations we are working through, not least NATO. It is through those arrangements and through trading arrangements with such nations that we will ensure diversity of resources where we do not have those resources ourselves in the UK.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Minister mentioned that Devon is home to the world’s largest deposits of tungsten. Tungsten is used in medical devices, robotics and defence applications, yet 80% of global demand for tungsten is being met by China. Will any of the £250 million that the Government have announced in their defence growth deal go towards tungsten mining in Devon?

[Chris McDonald]

We are determined to ensure that we exploit all the natural resources I mentioned that are available in the UK. The hon. Gentleman mentioned China’s strong grip on the processing of minerals, and that goes back to my earlier point about processing. It is one issue to get the raw materials from primary or secondary sources, but we also need to ensure that we attract investment in the UK for processing, too. There is certainly an opportunity for processing to be co-located alongside the natural resources in Devon, if that were considered a beneficial economic opportunity.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, but he will be aware of the widespread concern about the impact of the deep-sea mining of critical minerals, which devastates an ecosystem that we know very little about. I acknowledge that he may not have the answer now, but will he undertake to write to me to say what the Government could do to ensure that we do not encourage deep-sea mining by allowing it into our future strategy?

[Chris McDonald]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are extremely concerned about the ecological impact of deep-sea mining. The Government support a moratorium on—I choose my words carefully here—the exploitation of deep-sea mining, while allowing for the exploration of deep-sea mining. As a scientist and engineer myself, I think that the exploration is valuable, to ensure that we gather appropriate data, and I recently commissioned work from the chief scientific adviser in my Department to be fully appraised of the potential environmental impacts of deep-sea mining.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement. It is great that the Government’s critical minerals strategy aims to reduce our over-reliance on foreign suppliers and to build a more resilient domestic supply chain, which is central to our growth sectors and to clean energy. He referred to the critical and important role of Queen’s University Belfast in magnet-recycling technologies. What steps have been taken to ensure good collaboration with the devolved Governments, to unlock further incentives for extraction projects, and to support domestic improvements through our minerals strategy?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the critical minerals strategy will benefit every nation in the UK, including Northern Ireland. I am particularly keen to learn more about the ionic liquid separation methods of Ionic Technologies, which has been a flagship project for Queen’s University Belfast. I wrote to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Governments before the launch of the strategy, and I am keen to continue working with them on it.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s critical minerals strategy, but I wish the great British export of polyhalite had been included and given the recognition that it deserves as a critical mineral. As Teesside is a region with great critical mineral strength, how will the strategy benefit it and the wider supply chain?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the polyhalite mines. There is the Whitby mine, of course, and I went down the Boulby mine myself some years ago. They are quite remarkable and a great natural mineral strength for the UK. Two projects—Tees Valley Lithium and Green Lithium—are considering sites in the Teesside area, and we hope that they will be operational soon. They are certainly positioning Teesside to continue in its strength as a processing centre for critical minerals in the UK.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, in an increasingly uncertain world, ramping up our domestic critical mineral production and diversifying our supply is critical to the defence of our country?

[Chris McDonald]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There is an intrinsic link between the availability of critical minerals and the surety of defence, which is why so many countries are concerned about this. It is also why I am determined to ensure that British businesses are invested in and grow in the UK so that we have the supply of critical minerals that we need.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome the strategy for all that it will do to tackle China’s stranglehold on critical minerals. It will sit alongside the Government’s efforts to build home-grown clean energy to get off the Russia-dominated fossil fuel market, and our work to ramp up the domestic production of defence capabilities to keep the Russian menace at bay. That stands in stark contrast to Reform, whose leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, has just been jailed for 10 years for betraying our country and accepting bribes for pushing out pro-Putin propaganda. Does the Minister agree that we can all feel safer when our essentials are made in Britain?

[Chris McDonald]

I agree that the security of the nation is very much dependent on the availability of these critical minerals. I hope that when people go to the ballot box, they think about the security of this nation and whether parties such as Reform can be trusted when they have senior people taking bribes from overseas Governments.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Critical minerals underpin everyday life and are essential from national security to the electronic gadgets we all rely on. Will the Minister say how the critical minerals strategy will ensure that UK businesses benefit while securing resilient supply chains?

[Chris McDonald]

Clearly the strategy will help UK businesses to benefit, but in my hon. Friend’s constituency, Wolverhampton North East, Recyclus Group is already operating a state-of-the-art plant that makes full use of waterless, low-emission processes to recycle lithium-ion batteries. I am sure we will see many such technologies to make use of end-of-life batteries from electric vehicles.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from the Minister, who is of course my constituency neighbour. He knows full well that we represent areas that built this country and were far too often left behind by the last Government, by globalisation and by deindustrialisation. Can he assure me that this strategy and our wider industrial strategy will benefit those areas, like Teesside and Hartlepool, that did so much to build this country?

[Chris McDonald]

We already have projects for lithium recycling coming forward in Teesside that will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents in Hartlepool. More than that, investments in nuclear power, the life extension of the existing power station, and small modular reactors in his constituency will all require critical minerals. He is right: the people of Hartlepool did build the UK and, more than that, they are now also the entrepreneurs leading some of these new critical minerals companies.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I respect my hon. Friend’s optimism and his detailed technical knowledge of this issue. I suspect it is going to be very tough getting the supply lines as secure as he wants them to be, but does he also recognise that there is an absolute magnitude problem? I am sure he has read the book “Material World”, in which the writer, Ed Conway, points out that in the next 22 years we will need an amount of copper equivalent to what has been mined over the last 5,000 years. Is my hon. Friend aware of that and is it part of the strategy?

[Chris McDonald]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of copper; I raised it nearly 10 years ago. Copper was not included in previous strategies because it was not regarded as a critical mineral. I am pleased to say that the new strategy creates a new category of growth minerals: minerals that do not fit the definition of critical minerals but are important for the future, and which we need in order to grow. The recycling and secondary refining aspect is also a priority for me; all of our copper is currently extracted and taken overseas for smelting and refining, but there is a good opportunity for us to do that in the UK.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister talks about things that are smelted, melted, forged and formed, and he will know that ceramics are crucial to those processes. He will also know that to deliver his ambitions for growth and recovery, and for virgin production, there will need to be an expansion of those processes. Is he having conversations with British Ceramics about how we can get refractory level ceramics in a better position to compete? Today’s announcement of the British industrial competitiveness scheme mentions foundational industries with a “certain threshold” of electrical usage. He will know that the processes he needs to get the strategy that he wants require gas, so are conversations happening about how the gas prices will underpin this strategy as well?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend correctly points out the essential role of ceramic refractories in the production of any high temperature processes, including critical minerals. I would be very happy to meet him later this evening to discuss both issues further.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Advanced ceramics companies such as Mantec in my constituency produce ceramic membrane filters that are capable of extracting critical minerals including from industrial waste, improving productivity and recycling, reducing environmental pollution and of course reducing costs. Can the Minister tell me how UK businesses in the critical minerals supply chain, including innovators like Mantec, can benefit from the strategy through our strong public finance offers, including the National Wealth Fund and UK Export Finance?

[Chris McDonald]

Businesses with the kinds of technologies my hon. Friend mentions—separation technologies—can, as she said, access funding via the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund, and also the additional £50 million that we have made available. If it is a very early stage technology, I would encourage the business to have discussions with one of the Catapult centres or local universities and to consider an Innovate UK grant.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I was delighted to see the prominence given to County Durham in the strategy, as Weardale, which I represent, has the highest density of lithium currently known in the UK. Will the Minister support me in working with the businesses in Weardale that are trying to extract lithium? Does he agree that we should not look only at extraction—we fall behind not only in the supply of critical minerals, but in their processing—and that there is a real opportunity to develop battery manufacturing in County Durham?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the opportunity in Weardale, which is currently being investigated by Weardale Lithium. I do hope that the company is successful in the extraction of lithium. Of course, as he says, there is an opportunity for processing as well. The strategy identifies two major areas of activity: in Cornwall, and in County Durham in the north-east of England. That is not a new arrangement—the village I grew up in had a sinkers’ row for Cornish tin miners who came to sink mines in County Durham and I am sure that most people in County Durham have Cornish genes—and the strategy provides a great opportunity for industrial collaboration between these two great regions of the country.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

Boulby mine is the world’s only polyhalite mine, but Woodsmith mine near Whitby is hoping to be the second. Polyhalite is a rare mineral that is used as a super-fertiliser. Will the Minister confirm that polyhalite, which contains magnesium, is eligible for support under the new strategy?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of polyhalite and the uniqueness of the UK’s reserves. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), the mine at Boulby, which I have visited, and hopefully soon the new mine at Whitby, which will be transporting material up to Teesside, both form an important part of the UK’s mineral resources. We expect and hope that they will continue to be exploited for some time to come.

Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Carolyn. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing this debate, and for his opening remarks.

Hon. Members may have thought, when they heard that Stoke-on-Trent had been “moulded by ceramics”, that it was the worst joke they would hear in the Chamber today, but I will try my best. When I heard my hon. Friend refer to valve valley, I wondered, as a cornet player, whether it was a reference to the famous West Riding brass bands: the Brighouse and Rastrick brass band, the Elland Silver band and my personal favourite, the Friendly band of Sowerby Bridge. I am sure that they use their cornet valves to lower or raise the tone just as effectively as we did in this debate. Cornet valves, of course, respond well under pressure—I shall see how I do with that.

Maybe, after this debate, the particular expertise of the valve industry in Calder Valley will be better known to the country. It is not difficult to see the impact that manufacturing, and the valve industry in particular, has on Calder Valley. I have seen, as I am sure those watching will have, the pride and importance that hon. Members across this House recognise in the manufacturing industries in their particular areas. These companies are the heart of British manufacturing.

In the valve industry, we have companies such as Hopkinsons, established in Huddersfield in 1843, which continues, as part of Trillium Flow Technologies, to export valves globally. Its valves are used in applications ranging from boilers to power plants, in oil and gas, and in petrochemicals. In Fort Vale, founded in Calder Valley, we have a global manufacturing presence making valves for transportable tanks. Last year, Fort Vale received its fifth King’s award—formerly the Queen’s award—for international trade. Blackhall Engineering is another astonishing story of a link between our Victorian heritage and modern engineering. It supplies valves for the New York City water board, replacing originals installed by its predecessor company a century earlier.

We need to recognise the local pride in Calder Valley, and in all parts of the country with a strong manufacturing heritage, and recognise the economic opportunity of wages and real value that manufacturing brings to these communities. But there are, of course, significant challenges, including those that hon. Members raised in this debate. I wish to address the challenges in procurement, skills and energy costs, as well as the challenges that have been mentioned for small businesses.

The framework through which the Government are working with industry and manufacturing is, of course, our industrial strategy, which attempts to respond to those challenges and to deliver productivity and growth, and is unashamedly place-based in the regions that matter to manufacturing. Some 84% of manufacturing jobs are located outside London and the south-east. I want to mildly disagree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), because she mentioned deindustrialisation—a word that I do not particularly like to use in this sense. The UK is very much an industrial country; we have just chosen to locate our industry elsewhere, and part of my mission is to ensure that we regrow and restore that manufacturing here in the UK. I know that she would agree with that.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) spoke of regional growth, which is also vital. Our industrial strategy is about securing competitiveness not only for sectors, but for regional prosperity, and we recognise that manufacturing is key to the resilience of our national economy.

[Gareth Snell]

A lot of Members have talked about the importance of defence manufacturing; the Minister has talked about our economic resilience, but a big part of this is our sovereign capability and our national security resilience. I know that he has done work on that, so can he say more about how his work aligns with the work of the Ministry of Defence team to ensure that the manufacturing capability in the UK is about not just economic growth, but our national security and safety?

[Chris McDonald]

That point is well made. Of course, alongside our industrial strategy, we have our defence industrial strategy. When I come to talk about procurement, I may say more about that, and many hon. Members have talked about defence.

When we talk about our manufacturing sector, it is important to highlight some of the headline statistics. Manufacturing pays higher wages and has generally higher productivity in the areas where it is located and, when it comes to the balance of trade, although around 10% of our employment is in manufacturing, it accounts for around 50% of our exports. Those outputs, jobs and exports consist of thousands of specialist manufacturers, large and small, up and down the whole United Kingdom. Those exports are global and, as we have heard, we also export into space.

On procurement—I know that this area has been a major concern for many hon. Members, and particularly Government procurement—I have great sympathy for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I am happy to pursue the specific issues that he raised. I see it as vital to our manufacturing and industrial sectors that we ensure that the money that we as a Government, or our regulated sectors, spend is significant and is concentrated as effectively as possible in the UK, for both its economic and its social value. We need to raise awareness of the opportunities. We must ensure that those opportunities are open to UK manufacturers and that our UK companies are competitive enough to win those contracts. The industrial strategy plays a part in ensuring that those companies can do that.

To increase business investment, we must also ensure that we have a real market opportunity, both at home and overseas. Our clean energy strategy is introducing measures aimed at directly increasing UK beneficiaries in Government procurement. The clean industry bonus for offshore wind, for instance, is designed to encourage investment in Britain’s coastal industrial areas and supply chains. We also want to see robust local content targets. We are examining market demand guarantees to encourage UK scale-ups and introducing a clean energy supply chain fund to support UK-based clean energy manufacturing.

The defence industrial strategy, which I mentioned earlier—the defence industry is, of course, another user of valves—sets out a major reform agenda for procurement to grow our UK industrial base. We will be speeding up procurement processes and reducing bureaucracy, while ensuring greater visibility of defence procurement and taking steps to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises will have greater access to our supply chains. Our procurement and capital programmes are key to anchoring manufacturing here in the UK and then encouraging businesses to secure investment and export overseas.

UK manufacturing, however, ranks just 24th globally for robotics and automation. Here I move to the topic of productivity, which is of course a key element in profitability and competitiveness. That is an area where, as a nation, we need to work more. If we are not working digitally, we cannot adopt automation and move as fast as our competitors. Our Made Smarter adoption programme, with up to £99 million of additional funding, will help with this. It will support more manufacturing SMEs to take up new technologies and improve their digital capabilities. We have had reference today to the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, which I know from personal experience is a great supporter of improving competitiveness, robotics, automation and productivity in our supply chains.

Skills was also an important feature of today’s debate. They were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, with his inspiring story of Stuart Billingham —maybe we all need to see more Stuart Billinghams in our lives. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) also mentioned regional skills development. I know that persistent skills shortages and the availability of good applicants are a concern felt across our manufacturing sectors. That is certainly an area for Government and industry to work closely together on, to encourage talented people from across the UK to seek jobs in our manufacturing sector. Fort Vale in Calderdale has a strong tradition in apprenticeships, and I understand that it receives over 140 applications each year for the opportunities it provides. That experience of high numbers of applications for apprenticeships is something I see across the country. I applaud the work of the West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services charity and its partnership with Calderdale college on the Industry 4.0 hub, which addresses exactly those digital issues.

[Rebecca Smith]

I mentioned skills as a significant challenge in the defence sector and the additional manufacturing. We have five defence technical excellence colleges opening by the end of next year. How well connected is the Minister’s Department with the Department for Education? Does he have any knowledge of when those colleges will be announced? They are surely a key part of what the Government hope to achieve with defence skills, but they will also be important for regions such as the south-west.

[Chris McDonald]

I welcome those comments. The hon. Member is right to point out that skills is a cross-Government exercise, and that applies not only to defence skills colleges. Work is done across the two Departments I work in—the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—and skills itself resides in the Department for Work and Pensions, which is where it is co-ordinated. Moving skills into that area and having the co-ordination there is exactly right. I also meet Defence Ministers to discuss this issue; many of these skills are transferable across industries, and we want to ensure that people can transfer across from different industries. A couple of weeks ago I launched the clean energy jobs plan, which provides support for people to move out of the oil and gas sector, for instance, and into clean energy industries. I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue.

Our focus on skills includes a new engineering skills package, worth over £182 million, to fund technical excellence colleges in advanced manufacturing. More widely, through the post-16 education and skills strategy, we are introducing wider reforms, including new foundation apprenticeships for young people in target sectors. Our new V-levels will encourage young learners into vocational pathways, and I am sure that hon. Members will have heard the personal priority the Prime Minister placed on this during his speech at the Labour party conference.

Attracting young people into manufacturing is clearly a priority for the sector, and our advanced manufacturing sector plan sets out ways in which we can do that. Wages in the sector are 8% higher than the UK average, which can provide great opportunities for young people. We heard earlier that welders earn even more than that—something that my nephew, who is a welder, also tells me. My welding is terrible, so I was absolutely unable to pursue that as a career. We are also concerned about equalities, and we have a target of 35% representation of women in the sector by 2035.

Young people also value their employment rights, and I should say to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) that before I came to this place I ran a small business that had almost all of those employment rights. I understand that small business owners might be concerned, but I can assure them that it is perfectly—[Interruption.]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. If the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) wishes to speak, I suggest that she ask for an intervention.

[Chris McDonald]

Small business owners might be concerned, but I know from personal experience that with the right level of support, it is perfectly possible to manage a business with these employment rights. I suggest support, rather than scaremongering, is the way to go. We heard from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) about the support a previous local industrialist gave to their community. Although I commend that, Labour Members think that good pay and conditions are a right rather than a gift.

Energy costs are clearly the major competitiveness issue for industry. I agree with the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), about the lack of competitiveness of UK energy costs—she cited a figure from the International Energy Agency showing they were 46% above European averages, and that is a figure I recognise. However, our clean power mission will ensure that we are weaned off the international gas markets, to which we were enslaved by the previous Government for such a long time. The shadow Minister mentioned Mossmorran, which is a good example of a business that sustained losses for years and was unable to justify investment as a result of the previous Government’s neglect of manufacturing and industry.

We recognise that, beyond our clean power mission, we must do more and act quickly to support sectors with high growth potential and significant exposure to high electricity costs. We are increasing the support available for energy-intensive companies through the British industry supercharger, and from 2027 we will introduce the new British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce electricity costs.

[Gareth Snell]

I make my regular plea to the Minister to consider extending the supercharger scheme to energy-intensive industries that are not currently covered, ahead of the introduction of the British industrial competitiveness scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I would have been disappointed had I mentioned the supercharger from the Dispatch Box and my hon. Friend did not intervene—I shall write that into my speeches from now on. His point is well made and is heard by me. A consultation on the British industrial competitiveness scheme will open shortly. I encourage the valve manufacturing industry of Calder Valley to participate in the scheme, and all Members to publicise the scheme to small businesses in their areas.

Hon. Members did not particularly mention regulation, but I want to raise it. Of course, £1 off the costs of regulation is worth £1 off any other business cost. A lack of new funding or of access to finance or working capital can be a reason that businesses fail to grow. Small companies tell me that financial institutions often do not understand their businesses or the need for more patient returns. We are undertaking a programme with the British Business Bank to make available £4 billion for our industrial strategy growth capital in industrial strategy sectors, and the Office for Investment will focus on high-value investments, leveraging the National Wealth Fund’s £27.8 billion for industrial strategy sectors.

Although we hear very strong voices regarding international alignment on products and standards, we also hear about the complexity of business regulation and its impact on smaller businesses. We have set out an ambition to cut the administrative costs of regulation for business by 25%. I am pleased to say that we have released a business questionnaire seeking views on the impact of regulation on businesses. Again, I ask for help from hon. Members in encouraging all manufacturers in their areas to consider closely which regulations are enabling or hindering growth, and where compliance is creating an undue burden.

[Jim Shannon]

I hope the Minister will forgive me if he is going to address my earlier request, which related to the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister back home. I know that he travels to Northern Ireland and has an interest in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we work together. Will he give the commitment I mentioned?

[Chris McDonald]

I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that earlier, and he is right that I have a strong interest in Northern Ireland and a great deal of respect for our advanced manufacturing there. I look forward to visiting the aerospace and shipbuilding industry there soon—I think it will be early in the new year—and I am absolutely committed to working with Northern Irish MPs and the local authorities to ensure that the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland thrives.

Our plan for small and medium-sized businesses, published this year, includes a number of additional measures aimed at assisting those businesses, including ending late payments, modernising the tax system, establishing the new business growth service, and considering how we can best support exporting businesses to increase their exporting activity.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

The Minister talks about SME exporting. Is he aware that, although UK Export Finance has unveiled what it believes is a fantastic and ambitious plan to support 1,000 SME exporters a year by 2029, there are 314,000 SME exporters in the UK at the moment? I would not have thought that 1,000 a year out of 314,000 is very ambitious.

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is right that UK Export Finance’s plan is to encourage an additional 1,000 businesses, but that is not the limit of our ambition with regard to SME exporting. It is important that we increase not only the number of SMEs that are exporting but, as I said earlier, the competitiveness of SMEs, so that they can increase the percentage of their exports. The work we are doing on UK procurement will also help with that by giving a baseload of orders to UK businesses that will then increase their competitiveness and enable them to win more export orders.

[Dr Gardner]

In 1882, a ceramics company in my constituency exported 50% of its products to Europe and globally. Since Brexit its ability to export to Europe has dramatically reduced. It can export to the US in two days, but it can take months to get its exports to Italy. What can the Minister do to help us improve our trade to Europe?

[Chris McDonald]

This comes back exactly to my point about regulation. Through our work with the EU, we are endeavouring to ensure that we have maximum access to the market. Where regulatory burdens are restricting export activity, I am keen to hear about them. I encourage businesses to come forward and support the questionnaire we have released on business regulation.

The industrial strategy places an emphasis on growth and frontier industries, but it also gives a clear focus to city regions and clusters with the highest potential to support our growth sectors. It is important to us that we grow the manufacturing sector across the country and also businesses, small and large, in supply chains, as well as well-known household names. I reaffirm that the Government have an ongoing commitment to UK manufacturing. We can too easily think about manufacturing as being about household names and consumer products, but we have heard a lot today about manufacturing businesses in the supply chain that employ many more people and make a significant economic contribution, over and above the consumer products we can buy.

As I know myself, manufacturing is about local businesses that have an impact locally on communities and prosperity, as well as on the growth of the country. The Government have a high ambition for our manufacturing industry. By 2035, we want to be the best place in the world to start, grow and invest in advanced manufacturing. We want to double the annual business investment entering the UK manufacturing sector from £21 billion a year to nearly £40 billion a year. That requires bold action, and in many of the measures I have set out we are looking to do more. The steps we have taken in setting out the industrial strategy and various sector plans this year, and the reforms we are making to skills, finance, innovation and regulation, will have a positive and lasting impact, not only for valve manufacturers in Calder Valley but for other specialist manufacturers around the UK.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister for my elevation to Dame—it has a certain ring to it. I call Josh Fenton-Glynn to wind up the debate briefly.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Industry (Chris McDonald)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the closure of the ExxonMobil Fife ethylene plant at Mossmorran in Scotland. I thank Mr Speaker for accommodating this statement today.

Like many Members of this House, I am saddened to learn of Exxon’s plans to close its Fife ethylene plant. This decision is of course extremely worrying news for those employed by Exxon, as well as for contractors who work at the plant, those employed by the companies who supply the site with gas, and those at the adjacent natural gas liquids plant operated by Shell. While this is no solace to those impacted at Exxon, Shell has confirmed that it does not see its workforce or operations being affected by this closure.

The Government and ExxonMobil have been discussing the operating environment of the plant since April, and my officials have endeavoured to meet Exxon every week since August. Ministers also met Exxon regularly this year, underlining our commitment to exploring every possible opportunity to retain the site’s operations. This afternoon, I spoke with Paul Greenwood, the chair of ExxonMobil. He assured me that Exxon is not suggesting that this closure was due to a lack of action or will on the Government’s part. It was a commercial decision made when the numbers simply did not add up. He reiterated to me that the site is 40 years old, inefficient and in dire need of modernisation to be commercially viable for the future.

The company estimates that it would have cost close to $1 billion in capital investment to bring the site to a point where it would be profitable. That fact, combined with a challenging petrochemicals market, including a sharp decline in ethane supply in the North sea, meant that the investment was likely to outweigh the return. ExxonMobil has already closed similar assets in Europe, and is divesting from activities where there is no short-term path to profitability. It explored alternative use cases for the site, but none offered a viable route to sustainable operations. As the site has been significantly loss-making for the last five years, and as it would take a further five years for the investment to reach its potential, Exxon decided against continuing operations. In those circumstances, the support from the Government that Exxon would need to change those calculations was beyond acceptable levels. Exxon was aware of this, and it has acknowledged that, even with support, the commercial circumstances were simply too stark, and the costs would have been too great. So despite tireless, inventive and determined work from both Government officials and Exxon, the challenges facing the site were ultimately insurmountable.

The decision that the Government would not provide financial or bespoke policy support was communicated to Exxon by my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary, but we have of course retained an open dialogue with the company throughout. This is not a decision that either the company or the Government have taken lightly. As hon. Members know, this Government have shown that we are prepared to step in and support industry when it is feasible to do so. We have stepped in to support businesses in the steel, shipbuilding and chemicals industries, protecting jobs and vital capability across the UK, including Scotland, but in all cases there was a fundamentally sound business proposition underpinning our investment. Sadly, here that was not the case.

I want to stress that, as disappointing and concerning as the closure of the Mossmorran site is, it is not symptomatic of UK industry as a whole. Our commitment to supporting UK industry is clear in the many steps that we have taken since coming into government last year. Our modern industrial strategy lays out a raft of policy interventions to ensure that British industry remains a world leader that is hugely innovative and investable—a strategy to cut red tape, lower energy bills and get spades in the ground. The fact that we have seen £250 billion of investment committed and over 45,000 jobs supported since July is testament to the strategy’s success so far.

The closure of the Fife plant is a commercial decision made by ExxonMobil, but of course it has a very human cost. There are 179 direct employees and 250 contractors employed, and there are more people in the supply chain. I know Members from across the House will be primarily worried about these individuals and the communities impacted. Let me assure the House that the Government stand ready to provide support through the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response service and its involvement in PACE—partnership action for continuing employment. The Secretary of State is meeting Unite tomorrow as part of a wider visit, during which he will discuss options for more support for the affected employees. I also met Unite earlier today, and I will meet GMB colleagues tomorrow.

I have been assured by the company directly that Exxon, as a responsible employer, will ensure that it properly supports its staff in finding alternative work, including at its Fawley site at Southampton, and will support those employees in their relocation. Our focus now is on helping the workforce through this troubling period, and ensuring that responsible next steps are taken for the decommissioning and remediation of the site. Long term, we are ensuring that UK manufacturing at large benefits from this Government’s growth mission. We want to create the right conditions for British manufacturers to properly compete in the global economy and win. Over the coming days, my Department will update the House on the progress that we are making, not least on energy costs.

Before I conclude, Exxon chair Paul Greenwood asked me to reiterate a message that he has given to all the employees at Mossmorran. It is a message that I am sure all Members of the House will agree with: the closure of this site is no reflection on them, their efforts, or their work. They should be proud of what they have accomplished in the last 40 years. As Industry Minister, I personally thank the employees at Mossmorran and the Fife community for their contribution to the UK industrial economy and, through decades of ethylene exports, to our balance of trade for over 40 years.

This is not the end of Fife’s industrial story. As Exxon gradually decommissions and remediates the site, the Government are committed to working with the local authority and the Scottish Government to promote the benefits of this location for future industrial investment. This Government are committed to supporting the workforce and the community over the coming weeks and months, during what I know will be a difficult and painful transition. I commend this statement to the House.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. Since the Government came to power in July 2024, over 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost. Only this Labour Government would recognise that as a success. The Minister says that he is saddened. That is cold comfort to the workers losing their jobs today. Energy-intensive industries are in decline across the United Kingdom. Oil refineries and petrochemicals plants are facing the economic and fiscal realities of choices made by this Labour Government at Ineos in Grangemouth, at Prax Lindsey in Lincolnshire, and now at Mossmorran in Fife, where Exxon has told us that there is no competitive future due to the current economic and policy environment.

The Minister tells us that this was a commercial decision, and that the numbers did not add up. Er, yeah—due to Labour’s decisions. Honestly! He mentions the decline in the ethane supply in the North sea. He almost gets it. The Government’s destructive tax-and-ban policy in the North sea has led to disinvestment, and has undermined the petrochemicals industry and its ability to secure low-cost ethane. That is damaging our energy security, detrimental to our petrochemicals industry, and utterly devastating for Scottish oil and gas workers. The Labour party simply does not get it. Also, the carbon tax—£20 million per annum for the Fife ethylene plant alone—was crippling. We are suffocating industry in this country, and these are political choices.

Industrial emissions are mobile. If we decrease our domestic carbon emissions by crushing British industry, we are simply exporting our climate obligations and increasing reliance on imports of plastics, fuel, ceramics, glass, bricks, concrete and more. We must find a way to decarbonise without decimating our domestic industrial base. Simply forcing industry abroad does nothing to reduce global emissions; in fact, it does the opposite. The high cost of energy and this Government’s war on the North sea are killing industry in this country. We simply cannot afford this Labour Government.

Although the closure will be felt most acutely in Fife, the repercussions will reverberate across this country. For the first time since the UK invented polyethylene, we will not be manufacturing the primary component in this country. That is shameful. Industry has already warned that closures like Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost, undermining their competitiveness. We are not just talking about 400 jobs at Mossmorran; the impact of this will cascade down the supply chain. The domino effect is taking place already. Altrad, Bilfinger and KAEFER all announced redundancies at Mossmorran when Grangemouth closed earlier this year. Allowing another major industrial plant to close sends the signal to investors that under this Government, UK plc is closed for business.

We are losing domestic industrial capacity at a terrifying rate. The Minister claims that this is not symptomatic of British industry as a whole, but the drumbeat of job losses and plant closures tells a very different story. He talks of support for jobs, but unemployment has risen every single month since this Labour party took office. The closure will be felt by workers in Fife, but make no mistake: the crisis facing industry is stamped “Made in Whitehall”.

The Government have said in the House that they are ready to provide assistance to workers at Mossmorran, yet we still lack clarity about the support for the future of Grangemouth, and the status of the National Wealth Fund moneys promised by the Prime Minister. Can the Minister update us on the £200 million fund for the future of Grangemouth? We have not seen one penny spent so far. The Prime Minister’s promise looks like empty words yet again. What proposals have been brought forward, and when will workers have certainty about the future of the site?

This Government are taxing jobs, increasing the cost of energy and driving British industry off a cliff edge. Britain cannot afford this Labour Government; frankly, Scotland cannot afford this Labour Government. I feel very sorry for the Scottish Labour MPs who have been whipped in to defend this Government’s position tonight.

This is not a just transition; it is anything but. This is the wilful de-industrialisation of the United Kingdom. The Government are offshoring carbon emissions and driving up reliance on imports, and British workers are paying the price. Will the Minister outline the support that his Department intends to provide for the workers at Mossmorran, and provide an update on the Nation Wealth Fund moneys for Grangemouth? Does he agree that British industry is at a competitive disadvantage, due to the crippling industrial energy costs, the jobs tax and the carbon tax? Will this Government finally see sense, see what everybody else sees, and change their policies on the North sea?

[Chris McDonald]

I would be very happy to take the opportunity to educate the shadow Secretary on some of these issues.

[Andrew Bowie]

Patronising tone.

[Chris McDonald]

No; it is real. He will realise that soon. I was genuinely upset when the shadow Secretary of State described my words as cold; they were not. They were sincere and heartfelt, because I have been in this position myself. I really wish that the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues had shown similar vigour when the steel industry in Teesside was collapsing around us, and my colleagues and I were at risk of redundancy. The Conservatives stood by, and left 10 days for a buyer to be found for the most efficient steel plant in the country before it closed.

I take the shadow Secretary of State’s comments about the uncompetitive business environment in the UK with a pinch of salt, because the plant has been significantly loss-making for five years. I wonder why that is. Could it be because of our high energy prices, resulting from the previous Government’s decision to tie us to international gas prices and put us at the mercy of Vladimir Putin?

The shadow Secretary of State talks about a transition. I know what a terrible transition is like, because I lived through one in the coalfield of County Durham. The Government are ensuring, in Scotland and throughout the UK, that the workforce in these industries have the benefit of a proper transition. That is why we have an industrial strategy, and why we have intervened in industry in the areas that I have mentioned.

Now we come to the point of education. Sometimes it is best to get our knowledge of industry, and industry in Scotland, from somewhere other than Twitter, because we do in fact still have ethylene production in the UK, at Grangemouth. I would have thought the shadow Secretary of State would have realised that. Perhaps he did not realise this, but none of the ethylene produced at Mossmorran was used in the UK anyway; 100% of it was exported to the EU. That was why I thanked the workers for their contribution to the UK’s balance of trade over so many decades.

Finally, the shadow Minister can debate the nuances of carbon taxes if he wants to, but this plant exports all its product to the EU. To do that, the plant needs to ensure that the product aligns with the market in which it finds itself, which obviously has the EU emissions trading system. If it received relief in the UK, it would have to pay that tax to the EU. Does the hon. Gentleman prefer that that money comes to the UK Government or that it goes to the EU?

The hon. Gentleman’s comments demonstrate that not only does he not understand this plant, but he does not understand the chemicals industry. I really wonder whether he cares for the workers at Mossmorran at all.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

This is devastating news for all the workers at the ExxonMobil Fife ethylene plant in Mossmorran, many of whom are my constituents. ExxonMobil must now be fully transparent and give proper clarity for the sake of all those affected.

This company made £25 billion in profits last year, yet over the course of multiple meetings with Ministers in recent months it failed to come up with any viable proposals to secure the plant and the jobs. In contrast, I have today met with representatives of Shell, which runs the adjacent Fife natural gas liquids plant, and it has confirmed that the jobs there are secure for the foreseeable future.

I am also in regular contact with trade union colleagues. Earlier today, both Fife council and I called for a new taskforce to be set up to explore future options for the plant and provide proper support to the workforce. Will the UK Government give full support and engagement to such a taskforce?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to focus on the workforce. Earlier today, I sought and was given reassurances by the company on the support that it will give to the workforce. Its expectation is that, of the 179 permanent employees, 50 of those will remain in employment until at least 2027-28 to support the safe decommissioning of the plant, and a further 50 will be offered relocation to its Fawley plant. I have also made inquiries about apprentices.

On her specific request for a taskforce, that would be usual in this situation. I absolutely support it, and I think a new and distinctive taskforce is required for this plant to address the very specific areas, not only for the plant but for the Fife community.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I agree that this announcement is devastating for Mossmorran and for the communities around Fife. Hundreds of highly skilled workers now face an uncertain future and it is clear that the closure of this cornerstone facility reflects a deeper failure to provide the stable, long-term industrial environment that businesses need if they are to invest and grow in Scotland. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have warned that the absence of a coherent industrial strategy, first abandoned by the previous Conservative Government and then left to drift further by this Labour Government, has created damaging uncertainty for our manufacturing and energy sectors. Will the Minister assure this House that the energy sector is at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy?

Exxon’s statement made clear that the current economic and policy environment has made continued operations uncompetitive. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the UK remains a viable place for energy production and to prevent further closures of major industrial sites?

We also cannot ignore the human impact. Many of the workers are among the most experienced and specialised in the sector, yet only 50 roles are being offered elsewhere and that is nearly 500 miles away. Can the Minister tell the House how many have been offered and accepted relocation, and what support has been put in place locally for those who simply cannot uproot their lives, families and communities?

Further, the Exxon closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. What immediate and long-term measures are the Government putting in place to ensure that those individuals can transition to appropriate, well-paid employment? Communities in Fife deserve clarity, certainty and a real plan for the future. I urge the Minister to act quickly, decisively and collaboratively to protect the workers and to ensure that Scotland’s industrial base has a sustainable future.

[Chris McDonald]

I agree with the hon. Member that at its crux there has been a failure of long-term planning in industry. We can see that when we contrast the two ethylene plants in Scotland. The plant at Grangemouth imports a lot of its ethylene from the US, which is in plentiful supply and comes at a much lower cost. That required a significant investment in the port infrastructure at that plant. ExxonMobil was aware that, in order to ensure that Mossmorran was sustainable, it would need to make a similar investment. It would have been possible for it to have made that investment some years ago, but at this stage, an investment of about $1 billion that would not come to fruition within the next five years is judged by the company not to be sustainable. Of course businesses require some certainty in order to invest; I made that point at Energy questions this morning. The certainty provided by our industrial strategy—in particular, this Government’s commitment to renewable energy technologies—is allowing investment to come in.

I agree with the hon. Member that our focus absolutely needs to be on the employees. I understand that no employees have been offered relocation yet, but it is the company’s view that 50 such posts are available and it is inviting expressions of interest from employees at this stage. I understand that the other plant is a very long way away, and that relocation will not be suitable for everyone—perhaps people do not want to uproot their families or they are embedded in their local communities—but if some workers want to take up that opportunity, I am pleased that it is there. With the offer of relocation for 50 employees and 50 employees being retained, we can see a way forward for about 60% of the permanent employees at the moment. Clearly, I would expect the taskforce to provide support for the other 40%, and the UK Government are working with the Scottish Government and the local authority on that.

We must not ignore the jobs that are being created every day and every week in Scotland in our new clean energy industries, with up to 60,000 jobs by 2030. Fundamentally, this is about supporting that transition. It is my expectation that, as these new jobs are created, people will transition across. As I have said, I lived through a terrible transition in the past. The mission of this Government is to ensure that we have a supportive transition for workers and communities in Scotland and around the UK.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

This decision by ExxonMobil, and the manner in which it has been taken and announced, is a very poor way to treat workers who have given so much to the company and their communities. Given that only last year the company was announcing four-year apprenticeships at Mossmorran, including for some of my constituents, will the Minister do everything in his power to ensure that those apprenticeships can continue and that the company, which has made record profits in recent years, recognises its duty of care to those young people?

[Chris McDonald]

I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend earlier to discuss some of these issues in detail, and I am pleased that he has raised the issue of apprentices. I raised that personally with the chairman of the company earlier today, and I have established that there are approximately six apprentices involved. It would be usual in this situation for those apprentices to be found positions in local industry, and that will certainly be a priority. With only six apprentices, I do not think it will be a problem. Local industry tends to respond very rapidly in these situations, and of course it is a priority for us to ensure that those apprentices can continue their apprenticeships.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Exxon has said that the plant’s closure

“reflects the challenges of operating in a policy environment that is accelerating the exit of vital industries, domestic manufacturing, and the high-value jobs they provide.”

When are the Government going to take responsibility for the decisions that they are making? We see no prospect of energy prices reducing, while the ethane supply from the North sea is reducing at a huge rate. That is leading to these job losses and it will continue to lead to more and more job losses across Scotland, as the Minister knows, until policy decisions are changed and until the North sea is supported.

[Chris McDonald]

I am aware that that is what was reported in the press, but I actually spoke to the chairman of Exxon earlier and asked him specifically whether he could confirm that. He told me that there were a few issues, including the availability and cost of feedstock and the efficiency of the plant. He also said that without the $1 billion investment, he could not see a future for the plant in those circumstances.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for exposing the frankly ridiculous lack of transparency from ExxonMobil. My constituents certainly know exactly where the blame for today’s announcement lies: with ExxonMobil.

I wish to bring one issue to the Minister’s attention. A constituent—one of a number who work at Mossmorran —has contacted me with their concerns about the effect on opportunities for young people in the area. Given that we have also seen the SNP’s shocking failure on skills, including its cutting of college budgets by up to 20%, will the Minister reassure me that he will do everything he can work with the Scottish Government, Fife College and others to ensure that skills in the area are maintained and young people in Fife have the opportunities they deserve?

[Chris McDonald]

I, too, was particularly disappointed that the announcement was made so close to Christmas. Anyone making such announcements should take that into account. My hon. Friend mentions opportunities for young people, and he is absolutely right to do so. Our clean energy jobs plan was launched just a couple of weeks ago. It highlights the opportunity to create five new regional centres of excellence for clean energy jobs. I know that there will be great demand for the skills of young people in Fife and across Scotland and the UK in those clean energy industries. We have set out the jobs and skills, and the methodology by which we will enable people to access them. The Prime Minister was very clear about that in his speech to the Labour party conference: opportunity for young people is a mission of this Government. Ensuring that young people can access high-quality jobs in the clean energy industries in Fife must be a priority for the taskforce.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Unfortunately for the Minister, some of us have also spoken to Mr Greenwood today. Although the Minister argues that this decision has nothing to do with the Government’s policy on the North sea, that is certainly not what was conveyed to me, but I am sure that he will clarify that from the Dispatch Box. The Minister also says:

“Exxon are not suggesting that this closure was due to a lack of action or will on behalf of the Government.”

Meanwhile, Exxon’s statement says that the decision is down to

“the UK’s current economic and policy environment combined with market conditions”.

What we have tonight is 400 families knowing that they do not have certainty over their ability to pay their bills going forward, a whole community impacted as a result of this decision, and a UK Government Minister who is not being clear with them about why this has happened and why he is not helping them. He stated from the Dispatch Box just a moment ago that the Government have before chosen to intervene—we know that they chose to intervene in Scunthorpe—but they chose not to do so in Grangemouth, as Labour Members will recall, and the Minister is choosing not do so now in Mossmorran. The Government are sleepwalking into the deindustrialisation of Scotland. This is on them.

[Chris McDonald]

Maybe it would be helpful if I reiterated the direct quote from the chair of Exxon, who said that the closure was not due to a lack of action or will on the part of the Government. He was clear about the condition of the plant. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government have intervened in the past where there has been a fundamentally sound business proposition. The right hon. Member failed to mention—maybe he has forgotten it—the £200 million commitment that the Government have made to Grangemouth, and the 100 projects that are lining up behind it to support the people there. Obviously he did not want to welcome that. He talks about a strategy for industry. Well, I have not seen the SNP industrial strategy. Perhaps I missed it.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the Minister for his work, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for hers, in trying to engage regularly with ExxonMobil for the last couple of months. However, they failed to extract any viable proposal from the company on a way forward. Sharon Graham, the leader of Unite, has described ExxonMobil’s decision to pull out as “a disgrace”. It is a £25 billion company walking away from 179 jobs and 250 more contractors. Will the Minister ensure that, despite the axe-grinding that we hear from the Opposition, he works with the Scottish Government, Fife council and the community when he sets up the taskforce, to ensure a future for those workers?

[Chris McDonald]

I spoke to Unite representatives today and heard directly from the workforce of their experiences. ExxonMobil tried, prior to announcing its closure, to effect a sale of the plant, but it was not able to find any interest. I have been informed this afternoon that, as a result of the announcement of the closure, there may be some interest in the plant. Of course, we will explore every possible avenue for that and to ensure that the employees receive support, but if there are interested companies, we would be very happy to explore that, in working with the Scottish Government and the local council.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I agree with the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward): this is devastating news for Fife. Although the Mossmorran plant is not in my constituency, I know that I will have constituents who are affected. I note what the Minister said about this decision not being due to a lack of action or will on behalf of the Government, but his statement was pretty silent on the economic circumstances referred to in ExxonMobil’s public statement—in what I saw when this closure was announced, there was certainly an attribution to the UK Government’s failures in that regard.

I am a bit disappointed that the first mention of the Scottish Government was at the very end of the statement, in looking forward. The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs, and taking an approach that does not involve the Scottish Government allows the SNP Government to blame the UK Government when such things happen. Although today’s announcement is not a surprise to the Government, will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government in advance of this decision?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Lady points out that the plant is not in her constituency, but clearly the effects run far wider than the individual constituency concerned, particularly for a plant of this size, and we need to think carefully about the impact on the supply chain. I apologise for the fact that the Scottish Government are mentioned towards the end of the statement. That is in no way intended to imply that the Scottish Government have not been or are not involved. There have been meetings at the highest level in the Scottish Government. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland has also been involved in discussions with ExxonMobil, as we have tried to find any possible measure to avoid this decision. Ultimately, it was a decision for the business, and our focus now is on how we can move forward for the workforce and for the future of Fife. As I said, the industrial story of Fife is not over. There is excellent opportunity to bring new investment to that site in the future, and that sort of industrial regeneration is exactly what I want to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement this evening. I share the concern of colleagues, particularly those based in Fife, about the effect the closure will have. The news that contract workers were locked out of the plant this morning is a major concern, as is the news that staff—many of whom have worked in the company for many decades—have not yet been given information about what redundancy packages may be available. That is very worrying. What engagement is the Minister having with trade unions on this troubling development, and does he believe the trade unions have been properly consulted, as they should be in a situation such as this?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising those two issues. I raised the issue of redundancy packages with the company earlier, and it assured me that such packages had been made available. I then raised the same question with Unite the union, and it has undertaken to go away and confirm that for me—I want to do my own due diligence and make sure that is true.

I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend raised the issue of contract workers. It was reported that they were locked out of the site, but the actual situation is slightly more complex. Contract workers had their permits revoked this morning, which I realise sounds rather dramatic, but for a COMAH—control of major accident hazards—site, that is a normal procedure in certain circumstances. In fact, the workers themselves believed it was due to weather conditions this morning. It was actually to ensure that all workers on the site—either direct employees or contract workers through their contract managers—could be briefed at the same time on the issue. Contract workers were then allowed to return home or to resume work, recognising that not all of them would want to stay on the site at that time, having received such shocking news. Hopefully, that helps to explain the situation. Of course, I will ensure that I continue to ask these questions of the company and engage closely with both Unite and GMB on these issues.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

On the Business and Trade Committee, we hear all the time that energy costs in this country are unaffordable, and it puts industry of every kind at a disadvantage. We are seeing the results of that today. The other issue is the perverse carbon border adjustment mechanism, which actually makes imports of ethylene cheaper. The Minister referred to imports. Is it not the case that we need to look at all these policies in the round? We are crippling British industry.

[Chris McDonald]

I am committed to looking at the entire business environment for our-energy intensive industries—our heavy industry—because I want to improve the competitiveness. Perhaps I have an ally across the House who might help to point out areas that we could look at; I would certainly welcome that in the future.

I can perhaps provide a bit more detail on the two issues the hon. Gentleman raised: energy costs and the CBAM. On electricity costs, which are not the major factor for this site, the Government have introduced a range of measures to try to improve the cost competitiveness of the UK versus Europe, and we could talk about those in more detail at some other point. On gas, the UK is competitive with Europe; it is certainly cheaper than Germany and the Czech Republic, and it is slightly more expensive than Italy and Spain. The issue here is fundamentally the cost of gas in the USA, which is considerably cheaper, and we all understand why that is.

The CBAM issue is a bit more complex, because 100% of the material goes into the EU, so there is an issue around EU market alignment. Again, we could talk through that in more detail, but it means it is not quite as straightforward as if a domestic producer were asking for some relief from measures.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Sadly, this is an all-too-familiar story: private capital closing industry, leaving workers as disposable commodities to be tossed aside, and a community devastated. It is a carbon copy of what happened with Ineos and PetroChina and the Grangemouth oil refinery.

The Government stepped in at Scunthorpe, but they did not at Grangemouth and it looks like they will not at Mossmorran. Why not? Because Scotland is once again the victim of chronic deindustrialisation. For the sake of Scottish workers and communities, let’s get the £200 million spent, let’s get Project Willow going, let’s get new companies in, let’s get the good-paying jobs that my community and my town desperately need—and, for goodness’ sake, let’s have a bit of common sense and take some form of Government ownership in what comes next at Grangemouth.

[Chris McDonald]

I wholeheartedly reject the implication that there is some sort of anti-Scottish bias in this Government. I stand at the Dispatch Box as a McDonald, flanked by three Scottish Ministers. We all think very keenly about these issues in Scotland.

My hon. Friend made a point about British Steel at Scunthorpe. I mentioned the steel and shipbuilding industries, as well as other aspects of the chemicals industry, in my statement. The fundamental point was about having a sound business proposition. In this case, there was not a sound business proposition. The amount of money being asked for by the company, and the fundamental lack of profitability of the business over such a long period of time, meant that it was not a viable opportunity. That is why we need to look forward to how the workforce, in Fife and elsewhere, can transition into our new green economy.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Minister draws attention to the five Scottish Ministers on the Government Front Bench, but not one of them has said anything about the crisis facing those 400 families making a living from Mossmorran. The Minister seeks to hide behind the company’s statement that there was no lack of enthusiasm by the Government to find a solution, but that is not the point. The point is about what led the business to get into that situation in the first place, which is a direct consequence of Labour Government policy.

For the hard of thinking, those policies are: the carbon tax, at £20 million for Mossmorran alone; the cost of UK energy, which Labour cannot fix; the supply of ethane feedstock from the North sea; the energy profits levy, which this Government backs; the Government signalling an artificially accelerated decline in the North sea; and, of course, the national insurance raid on employers, taxing every job across the United Kingdom. This is industrial illiteracy and regulatory incompetence writ large. What does the Minister say to that?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, but it is a shame that he did not attend Energy questions this morning. If he had, he would have heard the Minister for Energy express those exact concerns for the community around Mossmorran. I also think it is slightly bizarre that the hon. Member would say that this closure is a result of Labour Government policy. The plant has been loss-making for five years, so unless he thinks that the Labour Government have invented a time machine, then clearly it is not our responsibility. What I was most startled at was the implication that it is now SNP policy to abolish the emissions trading scheme—is that the case?

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

Does this decision not just underline the urgent need for a robust industrial strategy in Scotland that protects jobs, strengthens the supply chain and ensures a manufacturing basis that is fit for the future?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In our industrial strategy we point to the eight core sectors, including clean energy and defence—all areas in which Scotland is incredibly strong, and that are underpinned by our foundational industries. Our industry is a great strength of the UK—in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—and one that for the first time in a generation is receiving a significant amount of attention from Government.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The company has been absolutely clear that this is the result of the economic and policy environment that it found itself in—it is as plain as a pikestaff. The Minister said that he has been in discussion with Exxon, including today, when presumably he discussed what it meant by “policy”. Will he please say clearly what policy issues Exxon has had that has led to this decision?

[Chris McDonald]

The company was quite clear that this is a commercial decision, based on investment and a lack of performance of the plant. If the company had wished the plant to compete, it would have made the decision that was made at Grangemouth and created a port for the importation of raw material. It did not do that, and it judges that that is an investment from which it will not generate a sufficient return.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I grew up just four or five miles from the plant, and I have to say that it is an area still recovering from Thatcher’s economic vandalism. I thank the Minister for his statement and for the work he has done over many months, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her work. She stands in solidarity with these workers, and we should stand in solidarity with her, no matter which party we are from.

On 1 September we learned that it had been almost a year since any Minister from the Scottish Government had contacted the management team at Mossmorran—almost a year. It had been four years since any Minister from the Scottish Government had contacted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or the Health and Safety Executive about the management of the site. On 29 July, the Scottish Government were asked when they last proactively contacted the UK Government about the operation of the Mossmorran site, but they could not name a date, and going back to 2020 there was no evidence of any proactive engagement. We have heard bluster from the SNP this evening. Have the Scottish Government approached a Minister with any kind of coherent plan to support these workers or save the plant?

[Chris McDonald]

What my hon. Friend identifies is the different approach under this Government—a Government who have an active industrial policy and work in partnership with industry, in the same way that I saw other European Governments did when I worked in industry. He tells a sorry tale about the lack of involvement and engagement of the previous Westminster Government and the SNP Scottish Government regarding the ownership of the plant. That is in stark contrast with my predecessor in this role and the previous Secretary of State, as was also highlighted today by the Energy Minister with regard to the refining sector—another sector about which we are desperately concerned. Until this Government took action to meet the management, there had not been a meeting with a Westminster Government Minister for 13 years.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

We are seeing 400 jobs go, and we saw jobs go at Grangemouth. Is the Minister surprised that people in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, who are arguing for a just transition and being promised 60,000 jobs five years hence, have no faith in this Labour Government?

[Chris McDonald]

I am grateful for the opportunity that the hon. Lady has given me to clarify some words I said earlier. I did talk about 60,000 jobs by 2030, but it is actually 23,000 jobs in the industry by 2023, and new jobs are being created every day as a result of our investments in renewable clean energy. Beyond 2030 we can see that the clean energy industry is motoring ahead, but these few years are a really difficult transition and we need to work together. Jobs in the clean energy industry are being created every day, but a situation like Mossmorran obviously involves a significant number of jobs all at once. As I said earlier, we can see a way forward for 60% of the direct jobs at the site, and it is important to me that we also work with the other 40% to ensure that they are placed to get good jobs in the local economy.

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

This is devastating news for the Kingdom of Fife. May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her diligent work today and over a period of time on this issue?

Does the Minister share my frustration that despite attempts to fully engage with ExxonMobil over recent months, including through multiple ministerial engagement sessions, the Government were presented with no viable plan to save the plant by the company—despite, as has been highlighted, a £25 billion profit having been made by ExxonMobil last year? Will he outline what steps he will take, working with colleagues both in Scotland and other Government Departments, to ensure that the workforce receives all necessary support through the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response service and Partnership Action for Continuing Employment?

[Chris McDonald]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and colleagues for how they have engaged so carefully on this issue for such a long period of time. I look forward to working with them in supporting the workforce. He makes an important point that alludes to the strategy of the company. The company did not present the Government with a viable investable proposition. It has also closed a chemicals plant in France and has confirmed that it is reviewing its European assets. I think we have reached a point where we have to accept that the company has made its decision. However, even though the company could not find a buyer, as I have said, I understand that some expressions of interest have been made and we would be happy to work with anyone who is interested in the plant. We have vehicles such as the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund that stand by to support any viable business proposition in our industrial strategy areas.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The closure of the ExxonMobil plant is bad news for the whole of the UK economy, and it is the direct result of Labour’s economic and energy policies. Does the Minister accept that by pushing up taxes and energy prices, his Government are making the UK an uncompetitive environment for energy-intensive industries? What policy changes will he make to ensure that this is not the first of many such closures?

[Chris McDonald]

As I pointed out earlier, the business has suffered from a lack of competitiveness for the last five years, in part due to the relative lack of competitiveness of UK energy prices, and it is important to point out the things that we have done and are doing to address that. We have the energy-intensive industries support scheme and the supercharger scheme, which is providing up to 90% relief. We also have the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce prices for over 7,000 businesses by £40 per unit of power over a period of time. Of course, with this business, the energy input was gas. We are competitive on gas with Europe, but the issue has been the much cheaper gas prices in the US; the ethylene imports coming into Europe are primarily coming from the United States of America. On that basis, as an exporting business in the UK, the competitiveness issues are fundamentally why the business does not see a future in the plant.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think any of us who represent an industrial constituency cannot help but feel a tinge of sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) this evening. We have all seen factories and manufacturing businesses in our constituencies close. While I accept what the Minister says about the fact that we are competitive on gas price with Europe today, the reality is that the gas price today is significantly higher than it was three, four or five years ago. Often the products that are being made in these places cannot absorb those overheads, which makes us uncompetitive on the world market. We have to look at how we can subsidise those costs here.

On industrial electricity, we are out of step with the rest of the world and we need those prices to come down. The Minister mentioned the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but that will not come online until 2027. He mentioned the energy supercharger scheme, but that does not include whole swathes of industry, including ceramics. Is there anything that the Minister can do in the short term to ensure that we end up with help today for those sectors that need it, so we can prevent future closures of big manufacturing sites?

[Chris McDonald]

I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the ceramics sector, but his comments could read across to other energy-intensive sectors. I said that once quality costs have been taken into account, UK gas prices are competitive with the rest of Europe, but in the sector that he mentions, many of those imports come from Turkey. In some other sectors in the chemicals industry, the issue is about over-capacity, over-supply and the dumping of products in the UK that have been produced in the far east—there are quite a number of issues, and I continue to work on all of them across the heavy industry sector to ensure that we can improve the business environment as a whole.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Another week, hundreds more jobs slaughtered on the altar of net stupid zero. It is leading to high energy costs, high policy costs and high taxes, and making this business—along with so many others—completely unviable. How many hundreds of thousands of other industrial workers are terrified that they are next? Can the Minister confirm to this House whether any discussions have been had with ExxonMobil, or whether any indications or concerns have raised by that company, about any other plants, businesses or refineries in the United Kingdom?

[Chris McDonald]

I know that the hon. Member takes a keen interest in the carbon prices for industry, and it is worth looking at the particular situation of this plant, as it exports all of its products to the EU. It receives a carbon allowance for its emissions that is slightly higher than 50%, and the reason why it does not receive a higher level of allowance is that it reflects the inefficiency of the plant. Fundamentally, the free allowances are set against a benchmark—a plant that receives 50% is one that is inefficient.

As I know the hon. Member will appreciate, given his business background, the intention behind that policy is to incentivise the owner of the plant to invest in order to reduce their carbon emissions, and then they would be able to sell the carbon credits on the open market and generate further profit for the plant. That has worked very effectively in the advanced manufacturing sector. For whatever reason, the owner of this plant chose not to invest, and it has suffered the carbon penalty as a result. The community of Fife has suffered as a result of its decision as well, and we are now in a position where a $1 billion investment cannot be sustained.

As I mentioned earlier, this company is exporting its products. It would be very difficult for it to find any way to exempt itself from carbon policies, because of course the EU has a carbon mechanism too, and that is the market into which it sells. Fundamentally, that carbon cost has to be paid, either here in the UK or to the EU. I am sure that as a good supporter of the UK and of Britain, as opposed to the EU, the hon. Member would prefer that His Majesty’s Treasury receive any taxation income, rather than sending that money to the EU.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Could my hon. Friend set out what more the Government can do to engage with multinational investors and demonstrate that, from Rugby to Fife, the UK is an attractive environment for investment under this Labour Government?

[Chris McDonald]

As I set out in my statement, we have managed to attract £250 billion of investment. That investment is coming to the UK because we have policy certainty around industry through our industrial strategy, and it is delivering jobs across the whole of the country.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The Minister referred earlier to the jobs that are coming in the renewables industry. That will be no consolation tonight to the 400 families who do not have that future within their sight. He also rhymed off the Government’s policies for supporting energy-intensive industries, but those policies did not help Mossmorran—the company has cited the policy environment as a cause of its decision. Can the Minister please reassure the House that, before the Budget, the Energy Minister and his colleagues will impress upon the Chancellor the idea that perhaps new and more effective policies are needed to support energy-intensive businesses?

[Chris McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question, and particularly for reminding us all about those families. She is right that they are in an extremely difficult position, and while it is incumbent on me to point out some of the opportunities, I do not want to in any way diminish the real pain and distress that I know—I know personally—those families will be going through. I have strived to strike a balance on that, and I hope the hon. Member feels that I have managed to do so this evening.

The hon. Member mentioned, in particular, some of the policy situation relating to Mossmorran, and I refer her to the answer I gave a short while ago when talking about the impact of carbon taxes on Mossmorran arising directly as a result of the inefficiency of the plant. That is a consequence of previous decisions and a failure to invest in that plant. It ultimately means that the plant appears to be, in and of itself, not commercially viable. If companies that think they could make the plant commercially viable come forward, clearly we would want to work with such organisations.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I share his concerns about the loss of jobs and the impact on the families affected and the community in Fife. Does he also share my concern that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland refused to take a call, I understand, from the Secretary of State for Scotland tonight? If that is true, will the Minister please let us know what actions could be taken to remedy that situation for the families involved?

[Chris McDonald]

All I will say is that in a situation like this, I would expect every part of the governance system in the UK, whether that is the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government or local authorities, to act with a single-minded interest in the workforce and the communities affected.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Today’s announcement by ExxonMobil—a company that made £25 billion of profit last year—will be devastating for the workers, their families and the communities in and around Mossmorran. Does it not just show that ExxonMobil does not give a fig for its workers; it just prioritises profiteering? Does the Minister agree that the fossil fuel giants cannot be trusted to protect jobs or the planet? Will he commit to investing new resources to ensure a genuinely just transition in which the voices of workers are central to the debate, so that they are not left to the whims of these profiteering fossil fuel giants?

[Chris McDonald]

I point the hon. Member in the direction of our clean energy jobs plan, where we set out how that transition can be effected. There is also the £5.8 billion that we have committed to the National Wealth Fund to support investment in new projects. The transition of workforce and communities is very important to me and to this Government. Not all companies are the same; many different companies operate in different ways. This Government are absolutely committed to working with the private sector to achieve this transition, but in a way that is a partnership between Government, industry and trade unions. We are committed to that.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

We are talking about 400 direct jobs at Mossmorran, more in the supply chain, hundreds more at Grangemouth and a thousand a month out of Aberdeen. Those are independently assessed figures and figures that we know from the statement today. As somebody whose father worked at Ravenscraig in the 1980s, I know very well the impact such things have on families. The Minister has talked a lot about commercial decision making, but it does not happen in a vacuum; it is done on the basis of the policy environment and legislative environment in which companies are operating. He is not addressing that key issue, which is making a just transition unviable as it stands. Will he address those points?

[Chris McDonald]

I am pleased to meet another Member from a steelworker family. In fact, Ravenscraig is a plant that I never had the opportunity to work on, but I worked with many people who did, and they always spoke of the great sense of camaraderie among the workforce there. I absolutely refute the suggestion that this Government are not attracting investment. In fact, for Scotland alone, we have seen £800 million of investment in battery storage projects by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and £55 million has been awarded to the port of Cromarty Firth for small floating offshore wind. These are the industries of the future and the industries in which people in Scotland will be able to work in—in fact, they already are. The real responsibility of Government is to ensure that we help people to transition across into these industries. Fundamentally, that is the difference between this Government and every previous Conservative Government—and certainly the one in office over the past 14 years.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister says that he and the Government have no bias against the people of Scotland, but they certainly have not done very well out of this Government—1,000 jobs being lost a month in the North sea, and now today’s announcement. He attributes it all to a commercial decision. That commercial decision was made in a hostile economic environment. He has told us some of the factors there: carbon taxes imposed by this Government, lack of supply as a result of the reduction in North sea production, and the energy prices as a result of the increasing reliance on wind energy. The common thread through it all is the Government’s net zero policies. Why can they not be honest with us and just tell us that these net zero policies are robbing the United Kingdom of all its energy-intensive industries and that this will not be the last job loss announcement that we will hear in this House?

[Chris McDonald]

The right hon. Member speaks of 1,000 jobs a month being lost in the North sea oil and gas industry. That is not a figure I recognise, so I would be happy if he would share the source of that figure with me. However, I have some figures of my own to trade, if he wishes to know them. We are expecting 800,000 jobs to be created in the clean energy industries. We have attracted £52 billion of private sector investment since July 2024, and £5 billion per year of gross value added to the UK economy from carbon capture and storage alone by 2050.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and wish him well in his endeavours. Anybody in this place would be churlish not to wish him well in his endeavours to try to do better—

[Jim Shannon]

Expect there might be one or two to my left-hand side, but that is by the way.

It is sad to hear of yet another large UK company closure next year, this time in Mossmorran. I have seen and experienced similar stories in Northern Ireland, and what springs to mind is always the impact that this will have on the workers. Alongside the Scottish Government, can the Minister provide an assurance that this Government will do all they can to protect the livelihoods of those workers and, indeed, all workers who face redundancy as a result of not being able to find solutions to keep such plants open? We all recognise that these workers need help, and they need it today. What can be done to assure them of a future for their families, their mortgages and the debts they owe?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, which is always sincerely and kindly made. I agree that what will be precisely on the minds of the workforce at Mossmorran right now will be how they will manage in the run-up to Christmas. They will be thinking about whether they will be able to pay an instalment on their holiday in January. The plant is set for closure on 16 February, so there is a bit of time in terms of, as I mentioned, the 40% of the workforce for whom who we will need to find alternative employment.

I mentioned in my statement that the DWP is ready to stand by to help—I appreciate that could sound quite cold, but it does stand ready. Combined with the Scottish Government, the local authority and the support from the UK Government, including the taskforce, that is the support that we will give directly to the employees and their families.

[Andrew Bowie]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—I promise I will not make a habit of this. I am a bit worried that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House, because he said that in his earlier conversation with the chairman of ExxonMobil, Paul Greenwood, he had pointed to no policy decisions by this Government as reasons for closing the plant. I and other Members also had the opportunity to speak to Paul Greenwood today, and he did give four reasons for the closure. The first two—the market and the cost of running an old plant—were, he said, not policy decisions, but the third and fourth certainly were. The third was the carbon tax, which is costing that plant £20 million, and the fourth is the sharp decline in ethanol production in the North sea due to the accelerated downturn directly due to Government policy. Will you give me some advice on how the Minister might go about correcting the record?

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

4. What estimate he has made of the value of private sector investment in clean energy since 4 July 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)]

I know from my time in industry that what business and industry need in order to invest is certainty, and this Government have provided that certainty. Over £52 billion of private sector investment has been won into clean power, thanks to the certainty of our clean power mission. That is why the Conservatives’ decision to trash our reputation as climate leaders was roundly rejected by business groups and the energy industry. We are delivering jobs and growth; they would put all of that at risk.

[Perran Moon]

Critical minerals are essential to power our renewable energy future. Since the general election, the National Wealth Fund has invested £28 billion into the South Crofty tin mine and £35 billion into Cornish Lithium, both in my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle. This is alongside major clean energy investment nationwide, including £33 billion from SSE, with 80% of that going into upgrading the UK’s power grid. Does the Minister agree that this is exactly the kind of long-term investment that we need, using public funding to crowd in private investment, which was inexplicably ignored by the Conservatives and would be cancelled by Reform?

[Chris McDonald]

The Government recognise the important role of the public sector and private sector working together to unlock these benefits, such as in critical minerals, as my hon. Friend mentioned. I thank him for his invitation to visit some of the companies that he mentioned in Cornwall, and I look forward to taking up that opportunity for a visit very soon.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

On this Government’s watch, Grangemouth has shut and oil and gas jobs are being pushed off a cliff. In the last 20 minutes, it has been announced that 400 jobs are to be lost at the Mossmorran plant back home in Scotland. The company blames the UK Government’s policy environment. The Government stepped in to save jobs at the steelworks in Scunthorpe. Are they going to intervene to save jobs in Scotland?

[Chris McDonald]

Of course, my thoughts and those of the Government are very much with the workers and their families at what I know from personal experience is a very difficult time. We must recognise that the company has taken a commercial decision. Although we have explored every reasonable avenue of support, the firm faces significant global challenges. The Government stand ready to provide support through the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response service, and I and other Ministers would be very happy to meet the right hon. Member to discuss what more we can do.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

The breaking news that the Mossmorran chemical plant is to close is yet more industrial vandalism put upon Scotland. Like what happened with Grangemouth, hundreds of on-site workers and their communities will be plunged into chaos. Why will the Government not take a future stake in what comes next at Grangemouth to give workers and communities prosperity and security?

[Chris McDonald]

As my hon. Friend mentions, this is a difficult time for the workers and their families both at Mossmorran, after this morning’s announcement, and across Grangemouth. In both areas, the Government have been and remain in regular contact with the companies, but we must recognise that significant global challenges have faced Exxon—the company involved in this morning’s announcement—which has already closed another chemicals plant in France.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Government seem to accept that China presents a range of threats against this country. There will be a statement later today about threats against Members of this place. We also know about China’s domination of the world market in cellular internet modules and the ability to insert kill switches into technology. Will the Minister take this opportunity to rule out any role for Mingyang in our energy infrastructure?

[Chris McDonald]

Many companies want to invest in the UK because of our clean energy mission. Any decision that the Government take will never compromise our national security. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about China, let us compare this Government’s record with that of the previous Conservative Government. The Conservatives built a nuclear power station that relied on the Chinese Government. We are building new nuclear at Sizewell, and it will be financed by the British Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

“The skills, infrastructure and experience built by Scotland’s oil and gas sector are vital assets that must be safeguarded and redeployed as we accelerate the transition to clean energy.”

These are not my words, but the words of Scottish Renewables. Why are the Government pursuing a strategy that is decimating that very industry and costing jobs across the country?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is indeed right that the skills of the North sea oil and gas workers are essential for the green transition. We will come forward with our North sea plan shortly. I am sure that he will want to take this opportunity to welcome our clean energy jobs plan, which highlights not only the many thousands of jobs across Scotland that the clean energy industries are creating, but the support that the Government are giving people in those industries to transfer across to new green energy industries.

[Andrew Bowie]

It is a bit rich for a Minister to come here, on the day that further jobs are being lost as a direct result of the Government’s policies, to talk about their clean jobs plan as if that will somehow mean anything to the workers at Mossmorran, Grangemouth and all the other sites that have lost jobs as a direct result of Government policies over the past few years. I understand why the Minister will not listen to me, but surely the Government must start listening to the renewables sector, the trade unions or their own Great British Energy, and use next week’s Budget to start reversing their damaging anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-Britain tax and ban on North sea oil and gas.

[Chris McDonald]

The Government have been clear that North sea oil and gas has a future for decades to come, but let us be clear that the closures in that and other industrial sectors are a result not of this Government’s policies but of the poor, uncompetitive business environment created over 14 years and a lack of investment in British industry by the previous Government. That has been reversed under this Government, with £50 billion of investment in new clean energy industries and investors wishing to continue investing in those industries in the UK.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for businesses facing increased energy costs.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for businesses facing increased energy costs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)]

This Government recognise the importance of reducing energy costs to boost UK manufacturing competitiveness. Under the modern industrial strategy, the British industrial competitiveness scheme will reduce electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt-hour for over 7,000 manufacturing businesses. We will also increase support for our most energy-intensive industries under the British industry supercharger, uplifting the network charging compensation scheme from 60% to 90%. These measures are supported by the connections accelerator service.

[Victoria Collins]

Businesses across my constituency, such as Redbournbury Mill and Total Cow Burger in Redbourn, have written to me about the crippling increases in energy costs. Coupled with the increased cost of national insurance and business rates, that means they are struggling to keep going. Ahead of the autumn Budget, will the Government commit to break the link between gas and electricity prices, as the Liberal Democrats have called for, to provide much-needed relief for businesses and families?

[Chris McDonald]

I acknowledge the work the hon. Member does in Parliament on energy-related issues and her Adjournment debate on high street businesses; that theme clearly runs through a lot of her work. She is right to point out the fundamental weakness we have that, when it comes to our investment in renewable energy, the price is ultimately set by gas. We want to address that through our clean power mission.

[Christine Jardine]

UKHospitality estimates that the industry contributes £8 billion a year to the Scottish economy. A major increase in standing charges would hit it hard. Many businesses in the sector are energy-hungry—for example, distilleries, pubs and restaurants—and across my constituency there is concern about the winter ahead. They want to know what this Government will do to protect them and ensure fairness for small businesses.

[Chris McDonald]

I do understand just how important the hospitality sector is to the hon. Member and her constituents, as a major part of the local economy. The Government’s clean power mission—investing in renewable energy, lifting the onshore wind ban and investing in offshore wind at pace—is bringing down energy costs and will bring down energy costs from 2030 onwards. The crucial challenge is how we help businesses to manage the transition between now and 2030. Measures such as the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which was announced in our industrial strategy, will support over 7,000 businesses across the country.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the increased help the Government are giving to energy-intensive industries such as Tata’s Llanwern works in my constituency through the increase to the electricity network charges discount. However, given that they still face problems competing with other European steel producers, may I urge the Minister to keep discussing with ministerial colleagues and trade unions what further measures we could take to protect them and shield them, to the benefit of sites such as Llanwern?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Llanwern; it is a site that I know very well and have worked on in the past. She is right to raise the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries. In my earlier answer, I talked through a number of measures we are taking to reduce levies and energy costs for those industries, but she can rest assured that I continue to look at whether anything more can be done.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

The ceramics industry across the country is foundational to every single part of the Government’s industrial strategy. Ceramics is an energy-intensive industry. Can the Minister confirm whether recent discussions about high energy costs for business have made mention of ceramics, an energy-intensive industry with deep roots in my constituency, where Armitage Shanks has been operating for over 200 years?

[Chris McDonald]

I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend recently to discuss Armitage Shanks. I am concerned about the ceramics businesses in his constituency and across the region. We want those businesses to be competitive, and while much of our earlier discussion was about electricity prices, for ceramics and many other energy-intensive industries, the issue is gas. After policy costs, the UK is competitive with many European countries on gas, but I understand that there are competitive pressures from outside the EU, and I will continue to engage with him and the ceramics sector to look at these issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The recent Cumbria Tourism business survey showed that 56% of businesses are struggling to pay their energy bills, with an astonishing 14% actively considering selling up or closing down. Once a community loses its pub, it loses its heart, and it very rarely gets it back. Ahead of the Budget, will the Minister speak with the Chancellor and others in the Treasury to back the Liberal Democrats’ call for a 5% cut in VAT to support this vital industry, which is, after all, at the forefront of sustainable business practices and at the heart of so many of our communities?

[Chris McDonald]

I must admit that, as a regular tourist to Cumbria myself, I absolutely appreciate the joys of a countryside pub in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I understand the pressures that they are under. I will leave any commentary on the Budget to the Chancellor at the appropriate time, but rest assured that every day in this job I am making the case for increased competitiveness in British industry.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

6. What steps he is taking to improve consumer confidence in energy efficiency schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

T4. The north-east is a vital hub for clean energy supply chains, and my constituents in oil and gas want to be part of that transition, but years of under-investment by the Tories mean that many North sea ports cannot host modern turbine manufacturing. As the Government prepare their plan for the future of the north-east, will the Minister consider infrastructure investment to enable communities and workers in the north-east to better benefit from clean energy jobs?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)]

I recognise what my hon. Friend says about the importance of port infrastructure in the north-east. We made a manifesto commitment to support investment in our ports through the National Wealth Fund, and I would be happy to discuss with her how the north-east in particular could benefit from that.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

T5.   In North East Hampshire, small energy-intensive businesses such as hair salons are struggling, because they cannot reduce their consumption. What plans does the Minister have to support those kinds of small businesses?

[Chris McDonald]

In response to earlier questions, I outlined the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which we announced in our industrial strategy. That will extend support to a wider range of businesses. We recognise the issues that businesses are facing with high energy prices, primarily as a consequence of the previous Government’s policies not to invest in renewable energy. We are changing that by investing in British home-grown renewable energy.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

T6. I am sure that Members from all parts of the House will join me in sending their best wishes to residents across Monmouthshire who have been severely affected by floods this weekend, particularly residents of Monmouth. One has told me that a tidal wave came down Drybridge Street at 1.30 am—in the middle of the night. It was terrifying, and businesses and houses have been decimated. The Minister recognises that we are facing a climate crisis, which means such events are all the more frequent. Can he reassure me that he will continue to work with Cabinet colleagues to meet our climate change commitments, so that we stop such events happening so frequently?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Hartlepool has one of the largest clean energy economies in the north of England with thousands of local jobs—jobs that Reform would destroy. At the same time, we have one of the largest nuclear industries. We have signed the biggest deal in our history—jobs that the Greens would destroy. Does the Minister agree that when it comes to energy policy, we’ve got clowns to the left of us and jokers to the right?

[Chris McDonald]

As my constituency neighbour has said, the green energy industry in his constituency is delivering thousands of jobs. On this issue, certainly, I am very happy to be stuck in the middle with him.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

In October 2024, I asked the Secretary of State about the previous Government’s idea of pumpwatch. He said,

“I will not comment on the Budget, obviously. We are very sympathetic to pumpwatch”.—[Official Report, 8 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 159.]

The Competition and Markets Authority has looked into this, and the Government seem to be bringing something forward called fuel finder. It is apparently due to be launched at the end of the year. Can the Minister update us on what that will mean and how the public will know about it? Cheaper fuel at the pumps is really important.

Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

I can say with absolute sincerity that it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I could not have wished for a more benevolent Chair for my first outing at the Dispatch Box here in Westminster Hall. I apologise to Members who may have been expecting the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), but she is attending the COP. I do hope that I am not too mean a substitute.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate. We all recognise how important the issue is. For me, it has been a real pleasure to sit and listen attentively to colleagues from throughout the House with such expertise. I shall endeavour to respond to many of the remarks that have been made, although I feel slightly sorry for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). Everyone else in the Chamber challenged the Government for being too fast or too slow, while ultimately working towards the same objective, but he occupied a slightly lonely position. That is the position his party has chosen to take.

An investment in fighting the climate crisis, and in net zero, is fundamentally an investment for our future generations. The economic opportunity before us can improve the lives of working people not only in the future but here and now, and our policies are intended to do precisely that. We want to tackle the climate crisis while ensuring that we crowd-in private sector investment. In Prime Minister’s questions earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister mentioned the £33 billon investment from SSE; the pursuit of net zero is clearly the pursuit of economic prosperity. Members have already mentioned the fact that the Confederation of British Industry says the green economy is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy, as are the good jobs provided by the green energy sector around the country.

Carbon budgets were a significant part of the debate. Ten years ago, the world was on course for 4° of warming, which would have posed a severe threat to human life. Today, through international action, we are on course for 2.6°, or below 2° if countries meet their full climate commitments. I was asked earlier about the Government’s focus at COP; fundamentally, our focus is multilateralism to get the world working together again. Of course, that is about ensuring that Britain retains its place as a climate leader, and that we do so in a way that supports communities and families through the UK’s transition.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, bring home the importance of thinking about the poorest in our society. I want to reassure him, and the House, that they are very much in my mind, and the minds of all Ministers, as we take forward these issues. That is why we are so concerned about getting bills down.

The previous Government left us an energy system that was tied to the international price of gas, which has left households with gas prices 75% higher than they were the year before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We have decided not to leave our future in the hands of international dictators and petrostates, but to return to energy security. That is what clean power provides us, and that is why we set up Great British Energy, which invests in the necessary kinds of projects. It also invests in community energy projects, which were mentioned by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does the Minister recognise that the policy costs mentioned by the shadow Minister are a regressive tax, and that it may be better to put those on to general taxation? Of course, the energy company obligations and other policy costs were introduced by the Conservative Government. Will the Minister give consideration to where they may best lie to ensure that what he said in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is realised?

[Chris McDonald]

Matters of tax are left to the Chancellor, particularly this close to the Budget.

The Government’s approach to the transition is about incentives rather than punishments—it is about carrots rather than sticks. The economics are working in the direction of net zero, and net zero is no longer a political discussion, wherever the Opposition think they are. Net zero is an economic discussion, and one in which industry has been quite clear about where the benefits lie. As industry is decarbonising, it is also digitising, automating and becoming more productive. That is what will fundamentally drive down costs for consumers and provide good jobs.

Essentially, we have a choice ahead of us about the type of country that we become. We can either seize this opportunity and capture international investment, which is going two to one into green energy versus fossil fuel energy, or take the regressive approach of the Opposition, which leaves us at the mercy of petrostates.

British Steel

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025. In addition to today’s statement, on 23 October my ministerial colleagues Baroness Lloyd of Effra and Baron Stockwood of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes led a debate in the House of Lords entitled “Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025”.

The Government’s priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.

On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at the spring statement 2025. To date, we have provided approximately £274 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials and salaries, and addressing unpaid bills, including for small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26.

I visited British Steel on 6 November to meet with the company’s UK management and trade unions. The visit was in the same week as the 50th anniversary of the Queen Victoria blast furnace disaster, which occurred in Scunthorpe in 1975, which British Steel employees and the local community commemorated on 4 November. The loss of life and the profound impact of that event on the local community remain a stark reminder of the critical importance of health and safety standards across all industrial operations. I laid a wreath at the memorial to the disaster in remembrance to those who had lost their lives.

Work continues to develop an impact assessment, which will be published in due course following Regulatory Policy Committee scrutiny. We are also continuing work on the introduction of a compensation scheme for steel undertakings in scope of the Act.

We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of British Steel. As we have stated previously, our long-term aspiration for the company will require co-investment with the private sector to enable modernisation and decarbonisation, to safeguard taxpayers’ money and to retain steelmaking in Scunthorpe. Once a solution is found, we will terminate the directions issued to British Steel under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 and make a statement on the need to retain, or repeal, the legislation.

[HCWS1030]

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to support businesses in the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain affected by the recent cyber-attack.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

All Jaguar Land Rover’s UK factories have restarted and the company is offering a financing scheme to qualifying suppliers. UK Export Finance has also provided a partial guarantee for a £1.5 billion loan from commercial lenders to help JLR manage its businesses and pay its suppliers. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s continued advocacy for the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain, in particular small businesses in the Burnley constituency. I understand that small businesses are now receiving support through the scheme, although more work needs to be done.

[Oliver Ryan]

I thank the Minister for that answer, for his work thus far, and for his extensive correspondence with me and the industry during this crisis. Local suppliers, such as the brilliant BCW in Burnley, have told me that the finance just is not getting to suppliers and that some of them are going to the wall or cutting jobs. JLR is not doing enough to avoid widespread supply chain job losses. This is affecting the entire British car industry through contagion effects, and suppliers are telling me that they are not out of the woods yet. What more can he do to get more support for our suppliers, such as BCW?

[Chris McDonald]

BCW in my hon. Friend’s constituency is an extremely important engineering firm not only for Jaguar Land Rover, but for our manufacturing supply chains. The concerns he has raised about access to finance for companies lower down in the supply chain are ones that I have raised with both Jaguar Land Rover and banks—I had with a meeting with most of the lenders. However, I commend the work of the Confederation of British Metalforming, which works with the supply chain. I understand that it had positive meetings with Jaguar Land Rover recently, although of course there is a cash financing issue as factories come up to speed. I will be paying close attention to that in the coming weeks.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

T3. Luxfer Gas Cylinders in my constituency employs more than 200 people and is a key supplier to hydrogen allocation round 1 projects. It wants to expand to become the UK’s only manufacturer of high pressure hydrogen cylinders for hydrogen tube trailers and hydrogen vehicle fuel systems, which are currently imported. Will the Minister meet me and other MPs who have significant hydrogen and fuel cell manufacturers in their constituencies to discuss how existing Government support for hydrogen can best drive UK growth and jobs?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

I was pleased to address a meeting of Hydrogen UK just last week, where I reaffirmed Government support for the sector, which we have recognised through our industrial strategy and the clean energy industries sector plan. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss in particular Luxfer’s ambitions to invest more in the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Workers at Tata’s Trostre site in my constituency have been hard hit by the five-week annual stoppage, leaving them short of money over Christmas. Despite reassurances from Tata, the Minister will understand that they are worried that this is a sign of worse to come. What is he doing to bring down energy prices, negotiate preferential treatment for our products to access the EU, and ensure that we strengthen our protections against cheap imports—all vital to the future of our steel industry?

[Chris McDonald]

We recognise the importance of the steel industry in Wales and of Trostre in particular, which has more than 70 years of tinplate production and is the only tinning line in the UK. I met the chief executive of Tata Steel this week to discuss this very issue. He referred to a softening in market demand, but fundamentally, this Government are committed to creating a better business environment for steel in the UK, so that it can compete with Europe, including on energy prices.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

T5. Small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency have told me about the impact that Trump’s trade war is having on their ability to export to the United States. What is the Secretary of State doing to support these vital job creators and ensure that British goods can continue to be sold worldwide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

To make steel in this country, we need ceramics. To build houses in this country, we need ceramics. Five of the eight industrial strategy growth sectors require ceramics. Ahead of the launch of the British industrial competitiveness scheme, might there be any interim relief from energy prices for energy-intensive industries?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for ceramics. This is only my second time at the Dispatch Box, but it is also the second time that he has asked me about this. He and I have already met to discuss it, and I am happy to have further conversations with him and industry about everything we can do, as soon as possible, to support the sector with its energy costs.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I launched my “Pub of the Year” award at the Goods Yard in Broadstone last week. Fifty-four pubs and two breweries in Mid Dorset and North Poole support 1,600 jobs and underpin the vibrancy of our towns and villages, but two thirds of them have had to cut jobs or hours since the damaging jobs tax. Hospitality venues typically operate seven days a week, and sometimes more than 12 hours a day, so they need many part-time workers. Will the Government consult on a new lower rate of employer national insurance for workers earning £5,000 to £9,100, to support the employment of part-time workers and drive growth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Spinning out of the industrial strategy is the eagerly awaited critical minerals strategy, the launch of which will happen in due course—or dreckly, as we say in Cornwall. It is of particular interest to my constituency. Canada, the US and Australia have already established new mineral exploration funds. Such funds support junior exploration companies in building up energy security and contributing to export-led growth. Is the Department considering such a fund as part of the critical minerals strategy?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy for the Cornish critical minerals industry—in fact, I thank all our fantastic Cornish MPs. He knows that the critical minerals strategy is eagerly anticipated in Cornwall and across the UK. The minerals in Cornwall are crucial to the future of our critical minerals industry and the security of the UK. We have the largest lithium deposits in Europe; we need to take advantage of that. We will look at all options to ensure that we get the financing to exploit those minerals.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Many small businesses rely on Facebook advertising to reach customers, but too many find that if they get hacked, it takes too long for Meta to let them back into their account. That has been the case for Andy Campbell, who runs ATR Carpet Cleaning. Will the Minister advise on how we can get the likes of Meta to reconnect these people with their accounts, because Meta is not doing that for us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Power Roll in my constituency has pioneered a world-beating, flexible, lightweight solar panel module. The next four weeks are a critical period for the company; a £5 million investment is needed to keep production and jobs in the north-east. Will my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench work with me to help secure this Great British innovation’s future in east Durham?

[Chris McDonald]

I am familiar with Power Roll. I have met the chief executive, and my hon. Friend has advocated extremely well for the company. I have also met potential investors in the business. I am happy to discuss that further with him after questions today.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

In recent years, imported bricks have made up nearly 20% of the UK brick market, yet I know that organisations such as Ibstock Brick in North West Leicestershire can supply the bricks for the homes that we need. How do we make sure that UK brick manufacturers can maximise investment, employ local people and deliver the bricks that we need for the future?

[Chris McDonald]

I am determined that this Government’s grand ambition for building will ensure that we supply more UK bricks, have fewer imports, and increase the productivity of our brick kilns around the country, including at Ibstock. The key is getting energy prices down, and that is what we are working on for our industrial strategy.

UK Export Finance Contingent Liability: Jaguar Land Rover

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

A departmental minute is being laid before Parliament today setting out the particulars of a new contingent liability associated with Jaguar Land Rover.

It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

Given the particular urgency of the Jaguar Land Rover financing requirement, particularly in order to provide urgent support to members of its supply chain, it is regrettable that we were unable to provide the House with the normal period for consideration prior to the guarantee being entered into. Due to an administrative error, it is also regrettable that we were not able to provide the House with a departmental minute with the previous WMS on this matter. We are rectifying that today.

JLR requested that UKEF provides its export development guarantee product to a commercial loan for working capital of £1.5 billion, repayable over five years, to help it manage the impact of the recent cyberattack on its export business and wider operations. UKEF had existing exposure to JLR and providing this additional support fell outside UKEF’s normal underwriting criteria. If this liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.

[HCWS1003]

Decarbonisation of Cement

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)]

I am so pleased that, due to a quirk in the timings, we have almost two hours for the discussion of cement. I will endeavour to make the best use of the time available.

I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) for raising the issue of cement manufacture in the UK. I share his concerns about the current level of cement production both for Derbyshire and for the UK. I hope that by the time I resume my place on the Treasury Bench, he may feel a certain sense of reassurance given the priority I am personally giving to this issue. He made the case admirably for the cement sector based on the jobs and the impact on the local economy. I will endeavour to add to that economic argument by outlining the importance of the cement sector to the UK more broadly.

Breedon’s Hope cement works in my hon. Friend’s constituency is the largest in the UK. It supports 270 jobs in his constituency and contributes £60 million to the local economy. In my role as Minister for Industry, I intend to be as vocal and visible an advocate of British industry as he is for the industry in his own constituency. To be clear, my objective as Minister for Industry is to ensure that we secure a sustainable and prosperous future for this UK heavy industry.

Before I talk more broadly about the challenge of decarbonisation, I will briefly set out the role that the cement sector plays in the UK. Cement is of course an incredibly ancient material, which was developed and used extensively across Europe by the Romans. However, it would be wrong to think of it as a material of the past. It is subject to constant innovation, as we heard from my hon. Friend.

If you will forgive me for saying so, Madam Deputy Speaker, cement is quite literally the foundation of our modern economy. It is the essential ingredient used to construct everything from homes and hospitals to bridges, schools, roads and energy infrastructure. Without cement, there would be no new housing developments or transport networks. That is why we recognise in our industrial strategy that the cement industry is an essential ingredient in our eight key growth-driving sectors and part of our foundation industries.

Some of this Government’s biggest and most ambitious delivery programmes depend on the strength and durability of cement, including our plan to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament and the development of our clean energy infrastructure such as nuclear and offshore wind. However, it is also an economically important sector in its own right, contributing £340 million in gross value added and employing 1,500 people in high-skilled, high-wage jobs, with a wage premium 24% above the national median wage and 6% to 8% above manufacturing benchmarks. Indeed, businesses in places where there are cement kilns are often the most highly productive, with the most highly paid jobs.

My hon. Friend outlined the challenge of decarbonisation, and we need to find a way for the UK cement industry to cut emissions in the future. He mentioned that it is a very energy-intensive energy, and he rightly pointed out that the challenge in decarbonising cement is due to the calcination process in the manufacture of clinker. I have no extreme desire to turn the House into a lecture theatre, but it may be helpful to dwell for a moment on the chemistry of cement production.

The process involves heating limestone to over 1,450°C to transform it into lime. In and of itself, this process releases the carbon dioxide that had been trapped in the limestone for millennia, and two thirds of the emissions are from the calcination process. They are an inevitable by-product of the cement production process, and they cannot be abated by fuel switching.

That problem was recognised a few years ago by none other than Bill Gates. We imagine that Bill Gates goes to very exciting parties in California, but maybe they are not as exciting as we might think. He says that when he is at a barbecue with friends talking about decarbonisation, as they often do, his friends say to him, “Bill, decarbonising steel is very difficult,” and I know that is true from my career. He always says to them, “If you think decarbonising steel is difficult, decarbonising cement is almost impossible.” This is a challenge that even Bill Gates finds it difficult to address.

However, the UK has always been a pioneer in overcoming such challenges. As we have heard, many technologies have been developed in the UK, and I will expand on those in a moment. The UK has been a pioneer in cement, too. The invention of Portland cement 200 years ago by William Aspdin sparked a construction boom that shaped the country that we know today. That is what we need to harness now: innovation to face the challenge of decarbonisation. I will outline some of the progress that the industry and Government are making. There are, essentially, three opportunities for us in decarbonisation. The first is reformulating cement, so that it intrinsically has less carbon. The second is reduction—using less cement on each construction project. There are a number of ways of doing that. The third, which my hon. Friend described extensively, is carbon capture, which is a good place to start.

My hon. Friend spoke of the Peak Cluster carbon capture utilisation and storage project, which is partly located in his constituency. As he mentioned, the project has been developed outside the Government’s carbon capture usage and storage cluster sequencing process. It is an important project that aims to store over 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the cement and lime factories that support jobs across Derbyshire, Staffordshire and the north-west. It could potentially decarbonise around half of our cement industry.

My hon. Friend mentioned the investment of £28.6 million secured from the National Wealth Fund, alongside £31 million of private sector investment. Just this week I met not only the Peak Cluster team, but Sumitomo, which is one of the largest private sector investors in the proposed pipeline. I look forward to further conversations with the Peak Cluster project to help bring this initiative to fruition. He asked me about contracts for difference. I recognise that there could be a role for contracts for difference. It is an area that I would be prepared to look at more closely in future.

Reformulation is about changing the recipe for cement, so that there is less embodied cement in each tonne produced. There are a number of other cutting-edge projects at various stages of development, although none has been fully commercialised. I alluded earlier to the historical role of cement. Again, this is not an entirely new endeavour. I mentioned that the Romans were particularly strong in the development of cement. The Pantheon in Rome has a marvellous dome, over 43 metres in diameter, which is constructed from three different formulations. There is limestone in the heavy cement at the bottom, and pumice stone at the top. Ultimately, changing the clinker that we use is at the heart of how we reduce carbon emissions in cement. I will outline a few projects that are ongoing.

First of all, there is Material Evolution’s MevoCem green cement project. It is working with global building materials company CRH, and has a pilot production facility in Wrexham that uses alkali fusion technology to produce cement at ambient temperatures, with no heat and using industrial by-products. Reclinker, formerly Cambridge Electric Cement—another project my hon. Friend mentioned—uses electric arc furnace slag and demolition waste to reduce clinker. Both projects began their experimental and pilot work at the Materials Processing Institute. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, you will see that I worked there in the past; I have worked on one of those projects, and supported another.

There is also Ecocem’s ACT, or activating cementitious technology. It is a low-clinker cement including limestone filler—this takes us back to that original initiative in ancient Rome—which is chemically activated to produce a strong, durable and low-emissions product. Today, I met one of the company directors when I visited the Amtest laboratories in Canning Town. You may think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do nothing other than talk to people in the cement industry, so interested am I in this technology.

However, it is not just the technology that we need; we also need improvements in standards. Developing cement is no good if we cannot use it, and we can use it only if we have confidence in its application in the long term. I was pleased to learn that industry is working on this, having developed a Flex 350 standard, which aims to be part 3 of BS 8500. That should hopefully give insurers confidence, and enable builders and designers to use some of these new materials. Innovate UK, as my hon. Friend mentioned, has supported many of these products; in fact, it has been overwhelmed by applications for new cement technologies.

Between the cement technologies and the reduction in cement that I mentioned, we could reduce carbon dioxide emissions per tonne and overall by around 40%. Of course, that leaves a residual amount for which carbon capture and storage, either through a pipeline or some other transport network, would be required.

Let us turn to the economic opportunity of cement. The pioneering work I have referred to is not just about cutting emissions and protecting our environment; we should not be blind to the huge economic opportunity. In 2023, the UK consumed just over 11 million tonnes of cement, but we produced only 7 million tonnes ourselves. The remainder, around 30%, was imported from primarily European countries, including France, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. This is quite a new situation, as it was usual for the UK to produce the cement that we needed in our own economy. Cement is very heavy, and it is expensive to transport. I see this as a lost opportunity to capture additional economic value for the UK.

Let me put it this way: if we produced domestically what we currently import, we would need to increase production by half. A 50% growth rate in the UK cement industry is conceivable; it would mean around five additional cement plants in the country. Between them, they would create around 750 jobs and £170 million in gross value added, and would eliminate nearly half a billion pounds in the trade deficit on cement that we had in 2023. Low-carbon cement also opens up new market opportunities. The Norwegian Brevik cement plant is now operating with carbon capture. It has sold out of its low-carbon cement in 2025, and has a growing order book.

I recognise that there is an important role here for not just technology but people. I welcome the support of the Institute of Concrete Technology, and I hope to be able to work with the Institution of Chemical Engineers. I place a very high value on the role that our professional institutions can play in helping people in our industries to transfer their skills across to new green technologies.

I turn to how the Government are supporting the industry. I start by acknowledging that the previous Government failed to recognise these opportunities. They neglected our heavy industry. By failing to invest in clean energy infrastructure, they left us dependent on fossil fuels and uniquely exposed to high energy prices, which led to a bills crisis across society. Heavy industry, including cement, was neglected.

The previous Government accepted that decarbonisation meant de-industrialisation; this Government do not. Through our industrial strategy, we are taking action to reduce industrial electricity prices. We are consulting on uplifting the network charging compensation scheme, a component of the British industry supercharger, from 60% to 90%, and we will publish a response shortly. The Government will also introduce the British industrial competitiveness scheme from 2027, which will reduce electricity bills by up to 25% for over 7,000 eligible British businesses.

The Government are also committed to delivering a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism to tackle the risk of carbon leakage, and we have published draft legislation to enable us to deliver it by January 2027. That mechanism will ensure that highly traded carbon-intensive products from overseas, including products in the cement sector, face a comparable carbon price to UK goods. I understand that it will give industry the confidence that it needs to invest in the UK. I was asked today to ensure that the cement industry faces a level playing field, and the carbon border adjustment mechanism will contribute to that.

I know that my hon. Friend is also interested in emissions reporting. The Government have just consulted on an embodied emissions reporting framework, which will simplify and harmonise existing private sector data and instil more confidence in the data that is being produced. It aims to help producers with measuring, reporting and verifying the embodied emissions of industrial products in a more standardised and comparable way. The objective of that is to remove information failures and support buyers in making informed purchasing decisions.

The Government are determined to mark a departure from the de-industrialisation of the past. We know how vital heavy industry such as cement is to our economy, to our most important building projects, and for thousands of well-paid jobs across the country. The Prime Minister himself has spoken of our determination to renew Britain through investment in new homes, infrastructure and public services. That renewal will also mean a re-industrialisation of parts of our country that suffered from factory closure and a lack of investment under the previous Government.

A new age of industrial renewal has begun. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I look forward to working with him and the cement industry on how we can secure investment and grow the industry in the future.

Question put and agreed to.